Oral
Answers to
Questions

Justice

The Secretary of State was asked—

Parole Board Consideration Mechanism

Luke Evans: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Parole Board reconsideration mechanism.

Alex Chalk: The reconsideration mechanism introduced in July 2019 is a vital tool for public protection, allowing Ministers to intervene in broad cases where there is concern that the decision to release is irrational or procedurally flawed, or where there has been an error of law. Since 2019, this Government have used the mechanism to have 17 release decisions retaken by the Parole Board. Nine of those resulted in the board reversing its original decision to direct release, including the recent case of Colin Pitchfork.

Luke Evans: The Treasurer of His Majesty’s Household, my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), and I have both raised concerns about the release of Edwin Hopkins, the schoolgirl killer of Naomi Smith. I know that the Secretary of State cannot retrospectively apply the law around parole, but will he assure my constituents and residents in neighbouring Nuneaton that the new laws in the Victims and Prisoners Bill going through Parliament at the moment put public safety at the heart of future Parole Board decisions?

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that extremely troubling case. The murder committed by Edwin Hopkins was a truly dreadful crime, and I understand the concern about the release of prisoners who have committed such heinous offences. The reforms in the Victims and Prisoners Bill do ensure that public safety is at the forefront of parole decisions, including by codifying the release test in law and introducing a new power to allow the Secretary of State to direct a second check on the release of some of the most serious offenders.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Lord Chancellor for his response and his clear commitment to ensuring that victims are considered. As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, many people contact me about those getting early parole and decisions that are made. Will he reassure me and the House that victims will be considered and contacted before any person who has carried out an evil crime is actually released?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is one thing being a victim of a crime in the first place but another not being kept updated on progress of the sentence of that individual, or indeed a parole decision. That is why we are absolutely committed through the victims code and other mechanisms to ensuring that victims are kept updated, including during the important parole process.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Historical Cases

Debbie Abrahams: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the time taken to schedule court hearings for historical cases of child sexual exploitation on survivors and their families.

Laura Farris: The House should be in no doubt as to how urgently we are working to accelerate justice. We will have recruited 1,000 new judges by the end of this year and extended the use of 24 Nightingale courtrooms, and we funded a record number of sitting days in courts last year. We have transformed how we support victims of sexual violence offences through the criminal justice system, including with the use of nearly 1,000 independent sexual violence advisers—some of those are especially for children—the nationwide roll-out of section 28 evidence procedures and pre-court familiarisation for vulnerable witnesses.

Debbie Abrahams: My constituent had to wait several years before her historical child sexual exploitation case was finally heard. During that time, the court date was cancelled twice, causing her immense distress. There is a backlog of about 65,000 Crown court cases—a third more there than in 2020—and nearly a third are waiting more than one year, compared with 10% in 2020. I appreciate what the Minister said about the additional barristers and judges recruited, but given the sensitive nature of these cases, could she indicate what percentage of the backlog is down to that and what she and her team are doing specifically to address it?

Laura Farris: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has raised this issue before. She will know that listing is a matter for the independent judiciary, but I do not seek to hide behind that. Actually, I would like to meet her to discuss the specific reasons for adjourning the case she talked about, because we might be able to do something to help.
I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to two important things. A new police taskforce set up by the Government to support historical child sex abuse investigations has led to a 20% increase in child sex charges in the past year alone. In addition to that, I will say this. Greater Manchester currently has 59 live investigations into child sexual abuse. These are complex cases involving multiple perpetrators and multiple victims. In one case that recently went all the way through the court, the perpetrators did not even know each other—they had never met—so even the decision about how the group is arranged, how the case is allocated and the length of time it will need for listing is particularly complex. I would like to meet her, for the reasons I gave.

Victim Support

Julie Marson: What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

James Davies: What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

Elliot Colburn: What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

Alex Chalk: Supporting victims has broadly three elements. First, it means ensuring harmful behaviour is comprehensively criminalised. That is why we have legislated to create new offences of stalking, coercive and controlling behaviour, upskirting, revenge porn, non-fatal strangulation and cyberflashing. Secondly, it means ensuring that the punishment fits the crime, which is why the average sentence has increased by around 50% since 2010. Thirdly, it means supporting victims before, during and after the court process. That is why we are funding over 1,000 independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers by 2024-25, we have set up  a 24/7 rape support helpline, and we are quadrupling funding for victims’ services in cash terms since 2010.

Julie Marson: Cuckooing is not a victimless crime. The victims whose homes are invaded are frequently extremely vulnerable. Will the Secretary of State consider a separate specific offence of cuckooing in the Criminal Justice Bill to ensure not just that the punishment fits the crime, but that the crime fits the crime?

Alex Chalk: My hon. Friend has been brilliant in raising this issue time and time again. At least in part because of the pressure she has put on, we held a stakeholder engagement exercise on this issue with the police, criminal justice system partners, local authorities, other Government Departments and so on. The exercise reveals that there are civil orders and criminal offences which are available to disrupt it. It might be, for example, that the underlying offence is the possession of drugs with intent to supply, the possession of firearms or common assault. However, this issue is worthy of further consideration, so I will invite a conversation with her in due course.

James Davies: Last week, I was contacted by a constituent who has been named in the local press as a victim of domestic abuse against their expressed wishes. As my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, naming has the potential to endanger their safety and harm their recovery. What more can be done to safeguard the confidentiality of victims of domestic abuse?

Alex Chalk: My hon. Friend raises an absolutely essential point, because giving evidence is a deeply traumatic experience. Powers in section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 allow the court, on application, to make a decision about anonymity and to take account of the circumstances of the alleged offending, the alleged offender, the alleged victim, and so on. That is a matter for the court. The court has to  weigh the circumstances of the case against the overarching interests of transparency. That is a matter on which the courts are well placed to decide.

Elliot Colburn: Carshalton and Wallington is supposed to be one of the safest parts of London, but it has been shocked by a number of knife and violent crime incidents recently, including a knife attack in Wallington Sainsbury’s on Christmas eve, which was traumatic not only for those involved but for those who witnessed it. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that victims and witnesses of terrible crimes can get access to help and support while they wait for the police to build a case?

Alex Chalk: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to that appalling incident. Yes, it is absolutely imperative that both victims and witnesses can access support in the aftermath of such shocking crimes. As I indicated, we are quadrupling funding for victims and witness support by 2024-25 on 2010 levels. This is important. Under the 2006 victims code that we inherited, support was available only for direct victims. We have changed that, so it is now available for witnesses who have suffered mental or emotional harm.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Government left the role of Victims’ Commissioner unfilled for over a year and to this day have refused to place any duty on public bodies to co-operate with the postholder. Will the Government and the Secretary of State explain why they have not supported Labour’s proposals to give the role the same powers as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has over public authorities such as the police?

Alex Chalk: The Victims’ Commissioner plays an important role and we are delighted that Baroness Newlove is taking it on again. She has an exemplary track record. The role sits within a wider approach that we are taking, which is to ensure, through the Victims and Prisoners Bill and through the revised victims code and so on, that victims go from being spectators of the criminal justice process to participants in it. I know the Victims’ Commissioner will help us on that journey.

Gregory Campbell: What is being done to ensure that victims of crime, particularly violent crime, get the necessary mental health support they require, particularly where they can suffer ongoing mental health issues and trauma beyond the period of the crime itself?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Gentleman raises an absolutely essential point. As I indicated, we are quadrupling funding for victims’ services on 2010 levels. Part of that is directed through police and crime commissioners to procure and commission precisely the kind of support he has indicated. What I am also able to say is that in those tragic cases that result in a fatality, the Homicide Service is now better resourced to provide ongoing support. That may be physical support, but it may also, sadly, be the mental support that is desperately needed.

Rehabilitation of Prisoners: Prison Estate

Andrew Slaughter: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the prison estate for the rehabilitation of prisoners.

Edward Argar: In December last year we completed an estate-wide programme of surveys to assess the condition of each public sector prison, and I look forward to seeing the findings of those surveys. By the end of the current spending review period we will have invested nearly £4 billion towards the delivery of an additional 20,000 modern prison places to ensure that the right conditions are in place for the rehabilitation of prisoners, and in the last full financial year we spent more than £200 million on maintenance and upgrades—alongside, of course, our continued investment in purposeful activity within the prison estate.

Andrew Slaughter: I was delighted to receive an invitation from the Minister’s colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), to join him on a visit to Wormwood Scrubs Prison in my constituency this Thursday, but less delighted when the invitation was withdrawn yesterday on the basis that it had been “issued in error”. Had I been permitted to attend, I would have raised the subject of the letter sent to the Lord Chancellor on 7 December by 10 chairs of independent monitoring boards for London area prisons, including Wormwood Scrubs, which stated that
“prisons are overcrowded, not safe and most of those in prison do not lead a ‘useful’ life”.
In the absence of a reply to that letter, can the Prisons Minister tell us how he intends to make prisons fit for rehabilitation, given that, according to trade union sources, there is a maintenance backlog amounting to £3 billion?

Edward Argar: If the hon. Gentleman would like to visit the Scrubs with me—and I am not issuing this one in error—I shall be happy to accompany him on a visit to his local prison.
As I have said, we continue to invest in our prison estate. We also continue to invest in increasing the number of prison officers—to whom I pay tribute for the work that they do day in, day out; I suspect that those on the Opposition Front Bench would join me in that—and to invest in purposeful activity. The efforts that we have put in across the estate are working, as is shown by the proportion of prison leavers who are in employment six months after their release, which has more than doubled in the two years to March 2023. I look forward to discussing this further with the hon. Gentleman in his local prison.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. As a Member of Parliament with a prison in his area, I find it disappointing that that invitation was withdrawn from a Member of Parliament with a prison in his own area. That is not how Members of Parliament should be treated, and I hope that the question of why a Member of Parliament has been refused access to a facility in his constituency will be investigated.

Edward Argar: I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that the invitation was sent in error by the office—it was not meant to be sent—but I am happy to honour that invitation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I hope that the Minister will look into this, because I am concerned about access for Members of Parliament. I now call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Bob Neill: I will not go on about how I might have got people into Wormwood Scrubs in the past in one way or another—[Interruption]—and, indeed, got some of them out!
I am sure the Minister will know that a key point that comes up time and again in reports from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, and when issues are raised by the Justice Committee, is the lack of purposeful activity. The physical estate is part of that problem, but so are issues relating to staffing and access to education and other provision. Is it perhaps time for a strategy for the whole of the Prison Service with rehabilitation at its centre, and might not one solution to the problem be a statutory definition of the purposes of prison, of which rehabilitation—along with protection of the public—would be a key part? Would that not be a way of holding people’s feet to the fire in order to deliver rehabilitation in the public interest?

Edward Argar: I shall certainly be happy to have that discussion with my hon. Friend if he feels that it would be useful. He is right to highlight the importance of adequate staff numbers, but I should point out that they have increased by 6.7% in the past year. I am also happy to tell him that this month we are launching the national regime model, which will require prisons to set out ambitious plans for dedicated purposeful activity—time out of cell. That will indeed hold their feet to the fire, because, as we know, such a regime is central to rehabilitation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Ruth Cadbury: The latest figures show that the reoffending rate among those leaving prison has increased. That is partly because prison is failing to rehabilitate—which is no surprise, given how overcrowded, understaffed and dangerously unsafe many prisons are. In one case, after heavy rain, prison officers were having to wade through raw sewage while prisoners remained locked in their cells. Does the Minister accept that the appalling state of our prisons is not only failing to reduce crime, but breeding it?

Edward Argar: The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with her assessments. I would highlight that reoffending rates are down on where they were when we inherited them in 2010. I have highlighted to the hon. Lady the investment in new staff and in our buildings. I would also highlight to her, and I hope that we will enjoy her support on this, the success of tough community sentences in reducing reoffending, compared with sentences of fewer than 12 months. I look forward to her support in delivering those changes.

Ruth Cadbury: I am going to remain on the subject of the prison estate. The Minister made a valiant attempt to defend the Conservatives’ woeful record on prisons, but they are failing to build the prison spaces we need to reduce this cycle of crime. Just last week it was revealed that the Government had built only 380 of the 1,000 pop-up prison cells that they promised by the end of 2023. Therefore, can the Minister at the very least confirm when the remaining 620 pop-up places will be built?

Edward Argar: I would gently say to the hon. Lady that we will take no lessons on prison building from the Labour party—the party that promised three Titan  prisons, with 7,500 places. How many were built? Zero. This is a Government who are committed to building 20,000 new, state-of-the-art prison places. Two prisons have already been built. One is in construction. One has just received planning permission, and I am hopeful that the other two of the six will receive that in due course.

Access to Legal Advice

Jack Brereton: What steps he is taking to increase early access to legal advice.

Mike Freer: Last year we spent £1 billion on civil legal aid to support the most vulnerable, and we recognise the potential benefits of early legal advice in supporting people to resolve their problems earlier. For example, last year we launched a £10 million housing loss prevention advice service. We invested in advice for welfare benefits issues, and early legal advice is also available for victims of domestic abuse in private family law proceedings, subject to the relevant means and evidence requirements. We will continue to invest in legal aid where we can see a benefit.

Jack Brereton: I thank the Minister for that response. Like many Members across this House, I regularly have constituents coming to me with many legal issues needing legal advice and support. Obviously, many Members are not appropriately qualified to offer that legal advice and support. Citizens Advice in Stoke-on-Trent are doing an excellent job trying to support many of my constituents with legal issues, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that members of the public get timely and affordable legal advice when they need it?

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend is right to praise the work of voluntary organisations such as Citizens Advice, and as I said in my original answer, we agree that investing has benefits. That is why, since 2015, we have invested more than £25 million to support litigants in person, including our current grant funding of around £10.4 million for improving outcomes to legal support grants. That is supporting 59 organisations across England and Wales, enabling them to provide urgent legal support and advice to help people resolve their legal problems. That is in addition to the investment in providing support on domestic violence, special guardianship orders, housing loss prevention and immigration.

Allan Dorans: In its Green Paper published in October 2023, the Law Society set out reforms to legal aid to help more people get early advice. Can the Justice Secretary confirm what discussions he has had with the Treasury, in advance of the Budget in March, regarding potential increases to the legal aid budget, and that Scotland will receive its share through Barnett consequentials?

Mike Freer: I can confirm that, following the Bellamy report and the implementation of what is known as CLAIR—the criminal legal aid independent review—we have invested over £141 million extra in the legal aid system, addressing many of the concerns that legal practitioners, including the Law Society, have raised.  I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am in constant dialogue with the Law Society on how we can improve legal advice for citizens.

Human Rights Legislation

Stuart McDonald: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of human rights legislation.

Steven Bonnar: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of human rights legislation.

Hannah Bardell: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of human rights legislation.

Martin Docherty: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of human rights legislation.

Alex Chalk: The United Kingdom has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international human rights obligations. We remain committed to a human rights framework that is up to date, fit for purpose and works for the British people. We have taken, and are taking, action to address specific issues with the Human Rights Act, including through the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Victims and Prisoners Bill and the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, which address the vexatious claims against veterans and the armed forces.

Stuart McDonald: The Rwanda Bill is the second piece of legislation that this Government have introduced that they cannot guarantee will comply with vital convention rights. Does that not illustrate the total inadequacy of UK human rights legislation? Any old Government—even a crumbling Tory Government—can rip up fundamental rights without constraint, doing over the Supreme Court in the process.

Alex Chalk: No, I reject that characterisation. The European convention on human rights, under article 13, provides a right to an effective remedy. We think there is a perfectly respectable argument that our legislation fulfils that. We are committed to human rights, and we think we have a route that safeguards those rights and delivers on the interests of the British people.

Steven Bonnar: The human rights campaign organisation Just Fair has said that a human rights Bill for Scotland would provide a blueprint for how the UK as a whole could enshrine social, economic and cultural rights in domestic law. I am certain that the Scottish Government would be happy to share their experience and expertise in this area, so will the Secretary of State commit to engaging with them, with a view to bringing forward equivalent UK legislation, following their example?

Alex Chalk: I completely agree on the common interest we share across the United Kingdom in wanting to advance social and economic rights—put another way,  ensuring good jobs and good public services. Of course that is right. What is questionable is whether it is sensible to make those rights justiciable, as we would find people pursuing all sorts of actions that clog up the courts, leaving them unable to deal with other matters. The hon. Gentleman is right on the principle we all want to achieve for people in our country. Is he right in wanting more litigation and more legislation? I think we have different views on that.

Hannah Bardell: The Scottish Government will bring forward a human rights Bill for Scotland, which is the right thing to do. Given the Justice Secretary’s previous statements in support of human rights and the ECHR, will he confirm his support for the Scottish approach? Surely putting human rights at the heart of Government and the wider public sector is the right thing to do.

Alex Chalk: It is important not to conflate those two things. We are a member of the European convention on human rights—I have already mentioned article 13—but that does not, in and of itself, determine how one should give effect to those rights. We already have the Human Rights Act 1998. It is not at all clear to me that Scotland’s proposed human rights Bill would advance human rights across the United Kingdom, but of course we will listen carefully to whatever the Scottish Government decide to introduce.

Martin Docherty: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the ECHR and the HRA are integral to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, setting out a framework for the policing and the very governance of Northern Ireland. Does he agree that any attempt to overhaul the ECHR and the HRA from this place could have serious consequences for the communities of Northern Ireland?

Alex Chalk: We have a human rights framework that we consider to be important. We are mindful of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. We are satisfied that we can deliver on the priorities of the British people. It is a perfectly reasonable priority to want to ensure that we have warm hearts but an open front door, and we are satisfied that we can do so within our international legal obligations.

Philip Hollobone: It was revealed yesterday that, despite the best efforts of the Home Office, an Albanian-speaking migrant who has spent half his life in Serbia, and who has been jailed in this country for 18 months for cannabis farming after having entered the UK illegally, has been allowed to remain in Britain after he successfully claimed that he cannot be deported to Serbia because he no longer speaks Serbian. This is despite Albanian being a recognised minority language in Serbia, and despite him living in this country with his Serbian brother. Does this not demonstrate why we need urgent reform of the asylum system and human rights laws to allow the rapid and effective deportation of such dangerous criminals?

Alex Chalk: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those who come to our country and betray this nation’s trust by acting illegally should not expect a warm welcome. That is why one of the things I am most proud of is signing a further prisoner transfer agreement with  the Albanians to ensure that the British people, having suffered the initial crime, do not suffer the double punishment of having to pay £49,000 a year to house them in bed and breakfast accommodation in the United Kingdom. We will send them back, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Chris Stephens: May I take the Justice Secretary back to his interesting observations on the Rwanda Bill? He has said that the whole debate around the ECHR
“has been tainted by a misunderstanding of what the actual rights are, as though they are a foreign import that do not reflect some of the cultural norms in our country…nothing could be further from the truth.”—[Official Report, 13 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 376WH.]
When it comes to the Rwanda Bill, why is he failing to uphold the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, which embody so many of the legal principles that the people of these islands hold so dear?

Alex Chalk: Respectfully, I completely reject that characterisation. We are remaining within the four corners of our international legal obligations. Our legislation is novel and contentious, but it remains within the four corners of our international legal obligations and delivers on the proper, insistent requirements of the British people, which are that we protect our borders and ensure fairness for all—for not only the British people, but those who have played by the rules and done the right thing when they have come to the UK. They will always have a warm welcome in our country. Those who act illegally can expect short shrift.

Chris Stephens: Of course, the Government state on the front page of the Rwanda Bill that they cannot guarantee that it complies with the ECHR, as the Justice Secretary well knows. The Bill also makes direct intrusions into devolved areas, because human rights are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. So will he confirm that a legislative consent motion will be sought from the Scottish Parliament on the safety of Rwanda?

Alex Chalk: The first point the hon. Gentleman was referring to is about the section 19(1)(b) statement, and such statements are not unusual—the much-missed Tessa Jowell took one through in the Bill that became the Communications Act 2003. There is nothing unusual about this, which is precisely why this provision was put in the Human Rights Act 1998. As for further LCMs, we will of course proceed in the normal way, and I will give that matter further consideration.

Custodial and Community Sentences

Desmond Swayne: If he will make a comparative assessment of the effectiveness of short custodial sentences and sentences served in the community.

Gareth Bacon: A 2019 Ministry of Justice analysis of a matched cohort of 30,000 offenders shows that those serving sentences of immediate custody of less than 12 months reoffend more often than similar offenders  serving a sentence in the community—55% of those sentenced to less than 12 months’ immediate custody were convicted in the following 12 months, which compares with 32% among those serving their sentence in the community.

Desmond Swayne: For years, I was a visitor at the Scrubs and at HMP Wandsworth. Persuade me that community sentences can be really tough.

Gareth Bacon: I suggest that the outcome speaks for itself.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Shabana Mahmood: Many, many more offenders will be serving their sentences in the community as a result of the measures in the upcoming Sentencing Bill. We all know that the Government have had to rush these measures out to deal with the prisons capacity crisis that they have created, but it is essential to recognise that these measures will rely heavily on a functioning probation service. With only one of the 33 probation delivery units inspected being rated as “good”, and all others being rated as “requiring improvement” or “inadequate,” what additional resources have been put in place to ensure that potentially dangerous criminals are being properly monitored?

Gareth Bacon: We have recently increased the budget for probation by £155 million and ramped up recruitment, with an additional 4,000 staff recruited over the last period of time.

Shabana Mahmood: That is a four-year-old announcement dressed up as something new and, given the extensive changes in the Sentencing Bill, I am afraid that it will just not cut it. Under the Conservatives, our vital probation service has been taken to the brink of collapse, and on current performance it simply cannot handle the additional pressure that these measures will bring and keep the public safe. So will the Minister commit to ensuring that the measures in the Bill will not come into effect until there is not one probation delivery unit still rated as “inadequate”?

Gareth Bacon: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We will keep this under review as the Bill passes through the House, and we will make further announcements on it in due course.

Probate Registry

John Stevenson: What steps he is taking to improve the effectiveness of the probate registry.

Mike Freer: The past 12 months have seen the largest volume of probate applications received by the service since 2006, and that follows two years of above-average receipts. In response, we have increased staffing levels by more than 100 people and streamlined processes. We have seen some improvement, in that the level of grants issued has been running at about 8,000 more over the past two months than receipts. The average mean length of time for a grant of probate following receipt of all the documents required is now 12 weeks.

John Stevenson: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Back in November 2020, I led a Westminster Hall debate highlighting the failings of the probate service. The service was once excellent, but that is no longer the case—I could give many examples demonstrating its continuing failures. I appreciate the Minister’s efforts to improve the service, but enough is enough. If the service has not materially improved in the next three months, will the Minister take the appropriate action and remove those who are clearly underperforming, so that the service can return to the level it once was at?

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend and I have had some interesting discussions on this topic over the past few months. Following a recovery plan to address the concerns that he and others have raised, I can reassure him that a new management team is in place and we are now seeing a distinct improvement in recruitment, competency, productivity and call handling, and for the past few months disposals have outstripped receipts. I appreciate that the service is not yet where we would want it to be, but I can reassure him that we are starting to see some impact as a result of the measures we have introduced. I am more than happy to have conversations with him so that we can work together to improve the service further.

Crown Court Case Backlog

Eddie Hughes: What steps he is taking to reduce the backlog of cases in the Crown court.

Giles Watling: What steps he is taking to reduce the backlog of cases in the Crown court.

Mike Freer: We remain committed to reducing the outstanding caseload in the Crown court and have introduced a range of measures to achieve that aim. We funded over 100,000 sitting days in the last financial year and plan to deliver the same this year. Thanks to our investment in judicial recruitment, we expect to recruit more than 1,000 judges across all jurisdictions. We are investing over £220 million over the next two years, not just to improve maintenance but to ensure that the number of courts taken out of action for unplanned maintenance is reduced.

Eddie Hughes: I am reassured by that answer, but can I press the Minister on other delays in the justice system? I have spoken to police officers who are incredibly frustrated by the delay in prosecuting those who they have arrested for multiple offences of shoplifting. What reassurance can the Minister offer to police officers in those circumstances?

Mike Freer: It is a concern to hear that police officers remain concerned. Some of the latest performance statistics suggest that the gap between charge and first listing is falling—the latest data shows it is down two days, to 31 days. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss any local issues he may have identified that are causing delays. Magistrates, who tend to deal with shoplifting cases, are among the most efficient parts of our justice system and list clear cases incredibly rapidly, but I am more than happy to discuss this further.

Giles Watling: In the light of the Post Office scandal, does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that we not only clear the backlog as quickly as possible, because there have been deaths involved, but enable the Justice Secretary to strip the Post Office of its powers to independently prosecute?

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend raises a good point. It is vital that the delivery of justice is swift. We appreciate that the wait for trial can be extremely difficult for victims, so we are doing all we can to ensure that cases are heard more swiftly. We are urgently working on the detail of how to clear the names of the postmasters as quickly as possible, and further detail will be announced in due course. There should be no disparity between the standard of justice in private and public prosecutions, and we will carefully consider the findings of Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Alex Cunningham: The latest criminal court statistics show a Crown court backlog of 66,547 cases, once again breaking records. The next quarter has just ended, so does the Minister expect the figures to break records again?

Mike Freer: In addition to the measures that we have already taken—unlimited sitting days, recruitment of judges, investment in courts to ensure they are resilient, and extending Nightingale courts—I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are building 58 new court rooms to ensure we have capacity. I have not seen the figures on the backlog, but the latest figures for the number of disposals—[Interruption.] Our courts and our judges are working flat out, as are all members of the criminal justice system. I reassure him that the level of disposals being undertaken by our judiciary is up and the work of our judiciary is exemplary.

Reoffending

Stephen Hammond: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Between 2010-11 and 2020-21, the overall proven reoffending rate decreased from 31.6% to 24.4%. The Government continue to take action to drive down the reoffending rate even further by investing in initiatives to get more offenders into work, stable accommodation and substance misuse treatment on their release.

Stephen Hammond: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the key to rehabilitation and ending reoffending is employment and stable accommodation. He has spoken already about purposeful activity today, but may I ask him to look at making the subsistence payment available to all prisoners on release, because that would ensure access to the sort of settled accommodation that is required?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. I am happy to meet him, if that would be helpful, to discuss further his ideas.

Dan Carden: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which concerns my involvement with organisations related to addiction and recovery.
I acknowledge the positives of rolling out incentivised substance-free living wings, but they do not offer recovery as part of the process. Recovery wings offer a far greater chance of rehabilitation as they get people into recovery while they are in prison and before they are released. Currently, there are only seven planned across the prison estate, and I think that it will take Ministers to challenge civil servants and NHS fundholders to see those rolled out. Will the Minister examine the benefits of expanding recovery wings across the whole of the prison estate?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for both his question and the tone in which he asks it. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of this scheme. As he will be aware, those seven wings are a relatively new step forward. We are seeing how they operate. I think, if I recall, they were initiated by the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), when he was in post in the Ministry of Justice. I continue to look at this very carefully, but I am watching to see how those wings operate first, but I do so with an open mind.

Release of Violent Offenders: Victim Safety

Liz Saville-Roberts: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure the safety of victims after violent offendersarereleased.

Alex Chalk: Protecting the public is our top priority. Offenders are subject to strict licence conditions on release, which can include tagging and exclusion zones, and they can of course be returned to prison if they breach those conditions. Victims of violent and sexual offenders serving prison sentences of 12 months or more are legally entitled to request protected licence conditions on release, including exclusion zones. The probation service works with partners including the police under the multi-agency public protection arrangements, to closely manage the risk presented by the most serious offenders.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Rhianon Bragg’s attacker was convicted of stalking, possessing a firearm and making threats to kill. Only two months ago, the Parole Board decided that his probation release plan could not ensure public protection, yet he will be automatically released next month. I have sent numerous letters to Ministers on this matter but have received not a single reply. Given that the victim lives in a remote area, which makes conventional surveillance methods virtually impossible, will the Secretary of State finally provide a credible response to the urgent safety risks faced by victims such as Rhianon?

Alex Chalk: First, I thank the right hon. Lady for raising this case. I do know about the case of Rhianon Bragg—in the interests of complete transparency, I should say that I was at school with her. The Government introduced extended determinate sentences in order to  better protect the public from dangerous offenders by making their early release dependent on the Parole Board. Offenders on extended determinate sentences must be released. As the right hon. Lady knows, there are no legal powers to hold them for longer at the end of that custodial term. However, they face years of strict supervision by the probation service with strict licence conditions, such as exclusion zones and curfews, and they will be returned to prison if they breach them. I am aware of the letter that was sent on the 14th to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. He will of course be happy to meet the right hon. Lady to discuss those points.

Probation Officer Case Load

Cat Smith: What assessment he has made of the sustainability of probation officer case loads.

Edward Argar: We have increased funding for the probation service by £155 million a year to recruit more staff, bring down caseloads and deliver better supervision of offenders in the community. We have also accelerated recruitment of trainee probation officers, particularly in areas with the most significant staffing challenges. As a result, more than 4,000 trainees started on training courses between April 2020 and March of last year.

Cat Smith: Probation workloads are too high, which is having a terrible impact on both staff morale and retention as well as public safety. What consideration has the Minister given to the very reasonable proposal agreed between His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the probation unions to free up staff time by abolishing the post-sentence supervision, which was brought in under privatisation and is seen as simply a waste of time by those probation officers and their employer?

Edward Argar: The hon. Lady raises an important point. Although, on partial data for this year, caseloads are going down, she is right to highlight that they are still high. She makes a good point about the post-sentence supervision requirement, which I am happy to reflect on carefully. I understand that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has met representatives to hear their views on the matter.

Safeguarding of Prisoners: Mental Health

Kate Osamor: Whether he is taking steps to help improve the safeguarding of prisoners with mental health needs.

Edward Argar: We are committed to improving mental health outcomes for prisoners, including recruiting additional staff, because having adequate staffing in prisons is important; investing £625,000 of funding in the Samaritans each year until March 2025, which includes the delivery of the Listener scheme; and working alongside NHS England, which is responsible for delivering mental health support services in the custodial estate to ensure that they are joined up and effective.

Kate Osamor: I have been working with a constituent whose son sadly took his own life in Pentonville last year. Although it is well established that there is a high rate of mental health problems among prisoners, the provision of support is insufficient and even reliable data on the scale of the issue is lacking. Will the Government commit to a full review of the support and safeguarding for prisoners with mental health problems?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I hope that through her I can pass on my sympathies and condolences to her constituent. I am not aware of the details of that case, but if she wants to write to me, I would be happy to look at that specific case. Sadly, there are too many deaths in custody and every one is a tragedy, so I am always happy to look at ways in which we can better improve the support available to those with mental health conditions or other health conditions that might make them more vulnerable within a custodial environment.

Topical Questions

Mike Kane: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alex Chalk: I thank the many His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff who continue to work hard over the Christmas period to deliver justice and keep us safe. Since the last Justice questions, the Victims and Prisoners Bill has passed its Third Reading in this House. It will enshrine the overarching principles of the victims code in law. It will establish a permanent independent public advocate for victims of major incidents, and it will enable a second check on Parole Board decisions in the interests of public safety. The Sentencing Bill, which is cracking down on the worst offenders by extending whole-life orders for any murder involving sexual or sadistic conduct, also passed its Second Reading, as did the Criminal Justice Bill, which will ensure, among other things, that criminals face up to the consequences of their appalling actions by requiring them to attend their sentencing hearings.
Finally, in December, I took part in a park run at HMP Onley alongside prison staff and serving prisoners. Congratulations to all who took part, except perhaps my private secretary, who had the audacity to beat me.

Mike Kane: The Minister mentions sexual offences, but it frustrates me beyond belief that my constituents have to wait on average 839 days for their cases to be heard. Is the distress caused taken into account, or is the system too broken?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of victims of serious sexual offences. We take that incredibly seriously, and that is why we have introduced measures such as section 28, which enables evidence to be taken and recorded in advance. We have increased the fees for barristers to make that more straightforward. We have also increased the number of independent sexual violence advisers, who accompany, as it were, those victims on that journey. That is very important to prevent dropout rates. This is an important point: the sentencing levels are much higher—up by 30% compared with 2010.

Alun Cairns: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that my wife is an education lawyer. Parents appealing decisions in relation to education, health and care plans and health needs are forced to wait between nine months and 13 months from appeal registration to hearing. That is far too long in terms of a child’s development. Does my hon. Friend agree with that? Does he also share my concern that some schools are delaying providing education, health and care plans in the knowledge that it will take a year or more to have an appeal?

Mike Freer: My right hon. Friend is right. Despite special educational needs and disabilities appeals and disposals being up by 24% and 29% respectively, I do share his concerns, and systematic reform is required. That is why through the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, the Department for Education and ourselves will be working hard to ensure that it is improved. I am more than happy to meet my right hon. Friend to go through the details.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Janet Daby: The Children’s Commissioner’s report on family contact in the youth estate states that at the weekend, in two young offenders institutes, boys spent only up to one hour outside their cell each day. We can clearly see why that has led to an increase in violence. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Alex Chalk: It is important to note that, since 2010 when we came into power, the number of under-18s in custody has dropped dramatically. The cohort now in young offenders institutes is, to put it politely, highly complex. We take that extremely seriously and want to ensure there are sufficient staff. We do not give up on people, but it is important to recognise that that cohort will have been convicted of extremely serious offences, and we want to ensure there are sufficient resources to try to get the best out of them.

James Davies: I recently met the senior coroner for my area about concerns over health services in north Wales and to discuss preventable deaths. As part of that work, he pointed me towards the Preventable Deaths Tracker, set up by Dr Georgia Richards in Oxford. Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting Dr Richards and me to discuss the potential benefits of the tracker?

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend makes a great point. My officials have already met Dr Richards to discuss her work on the tracker and, together with the Chief Coroner’s office, we are exploring with her team how best to share the tracker on the various websites. However, I am more than happy to meet with my hon. Friend and Dr Richards to discuss how we can work together.

Kate Osamor: Numerous studies have found that the numbers of minoritised and migrant women being held on remand are disproportionately high. For example, 10% of female black and Asian defendants were remanded in custody   by magistrates courts, compared with 7% of white women. What steps are the Government taking to address those clear inequalities in the use of remand?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she will be aware of the work being done across the criminal justice system through both the race disparity review and the Lammy review in that context. Decisions on remand are taken by the judiciary, so it would be wrong for me to comment on judicial decisions, but I am happy to meet her to discuss this further if that would be helpful, and so is the Minister for disparity in the justice system, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer).

Stephen Hammond: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions could take over a private prosecution and discontinue it?

Mike Freer: The Crown Prosecution Service can take over any criminal prosecution. It may then carry out the prosecution or it may end or discontinue the prosecution if it does not believe it should have been brought in the first place.

Chris Law: I am pleased to say that the latest Scottish crime and justice survey has shown that the volume of crime in Scotland, including incidents not reported to the police, has fallen by 53%. In addition, we have one of the lowest levels of recorded crime in Scotland since 1974—50 years. I add my thanks to all those who work in Police Scotland Tayside for their duty and service on behalf of my constituents in Dundee. Will the Justice Secretary join me in congratulating Police Scotland and all the community safety partners who have contributed to that success?

Alex Chalk: We of course welcome any reduction in crime, and I am happy to congratulate Police Scotland on its work. It is encouraging that across the United Kingdom, and certainly across England and Wales, crime and reoffending are down. However, I urge the hon. Gentleman to ensure that Scotland does not anything that would be regrettable, such as rolling back on jury trials, which are a critical part of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Luke Evans: Having worked in A&E at Christmas over the years, I have seen the outcome of alcohol-related violence and the injuries it causes. I know the Department has been looking at fitting alcohol monitoring tags for offenders during the festive season; what assessment have the Government made of their effectiveness in reducing alcohol-fuelled crime?

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Alcohol tags are hugely valuable and are being used increasingly to tackle alcohol-related offending, including violent crime, successfully. Around 2,800 individuals were wearing an alcohol tag at the end of November 2023, 900 more than in the same period the year before, and alcohol bans imposed in community sentences were complied with for 97.3% of the days monitored since their introduction in October 2020. They are a vital crime-fighting tool.

Emma Lewell-Buck: In May 2022, my constituent Tallulah Cox was diagnosed with brain stem cancer. She was left catatonic from the radiation treatment, a side effect that her parents, Zoe and Richard, were never informed about. They then had to fight constantly for the support and care that she needed from her local council and NHS. That support never came. Little Tallulah passed away on 2 November last year—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is topical questions. I have to get everybody else in. If the hon. Lady is going to ask a topical question, it must be short and quick to allow others to ask theirs. Has the Minister been briefed on what is being asked?

Alex Chalk: No.

Lindsay Hoyle: Okay. Very quickly, then—please just ask the question.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Little Tallulah passed away aged two on 2 November last year after those services failed her. How can her parents get some justice?

Alex Chalk: This sounds like an absolutely appalling case and my heart goes out to Tallulah and her family. I am unaware of the details of the case, but if the hon. Lady writes to me, she will get a response.

Kevin Foster: Dozens of businesses have signed up to Torbay Council’s safety of women at night charter, which is being championed by Councillor Hayley Tranter. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those who pose a threat to women, for example by spiking drinks, get the type of deterrent sentence that such disgraceful behaviour deserves?

Laura Farris: I congratulate Torbay Council and Councillor Tranter on their excellent work to keep women safe in Torbay. Spiking is a disgusting crime that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison depending on the harm that results. We are changing the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to define the offence of spiking specifically and comprehensively in law, with a view to encouraging more people to come forward. However, the biggest barrier to conviction remains the fact that toxicology tests are often conducted after the substance has left a woman’s body. That is why we are investing in research for rapid drinks testing kits so that spiking will be easier to prove and we get more of the offenders behind bars.

Meg Hillier: My constituent was the victim of a violent attack, but because the perpetrator got a sentence of less than 12 months, she was not told when he was released from prison. The police say that it is impossible for them to go through the records of everybody who is released in order to advise her, so there is a gap in victim support. Will the Secretary of State commit to resolving that?

Alex Chalk: The hon. Lady raises an important point. I take that extremely seriously. Certainly, under the victims code, the rights of victims to be kept informed  are far tighter than ever they used to be. If we need to go further, that seems to be a sensible conversation and I would be happy to have it.

Nadhim Zahawi: For too many years, this House has been witness to wrongful convictions in the Post Office-Fujitsu scandal. There remain 800 Post Office convictions based on bad data. Until those convictions are overturned, the victims cannot claim compensation. We could do something good together if the Justice Secretary brought a simple Bill to quash all 800 convictions immediately.

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who, with his customary precision, puts his finger on that appalling injustice. The suggestion that he makes is receiving active consideration. I expect to be able to make further announcements shortly.

John Cryer: I add my support to the comments made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). Cuckooing is a terrible activity, and making it a specific crime not only makes sense but would, I suspect, lead to the prosecution of other crimes such as drug dealing.

Alex Chalk: As I indicated, I will have a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) about that. There is very likely to be a substantive underlying offence, be it handling stolen goods, possession with intent to supply or firearms matters. This has been considered by way of discussions with criminal justice partners, but if there are further matters to consider with my hon. Friend, and indeed with the hon. Gentleman, I would be happy to have those conversations.

Siobhan Baillie: January is often considered family breakdown month. Anybody taking the terrifically difficult decision to separate this year will face not only a divorce costing over £14,000 on average, but months, or potentially more than a year, of resolving child and financial disputes. We need reform of focus in a range of areas. Will the Lord Chancellor kindly agree to meet me and the formidable Baroness Deech and Baroness Shackleton to look at our campaigns?

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I know that she campaigns tirelessly on this issue. I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with my noble Friend Lord Bellamy, who leads on this issue, to update her and the noble Baroness Deech—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Richard Burgon.

Richard Burgon: To reduce reoffending we need a strong, locally focused and stand-alone probation service—similar to how things were before privatisation—so why are the Government moving in the opposite direction with their One HMPPS programme, which has triggered a formal dispute with the probation unions because it subsumes probation still further into prisons?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question; it is nice to answer questions from him again, as I did when he was shadow Secretary of State.
The One HMPPS programme is about different parts of the system working well together to create a system that delivers the outcomes that society wants to see. I take the opportunity, prompted by the hon. Gentleman, to pay tribute to all the staff in the probation service. I had the pleasure of visiting some of them in Southwark recently, and I pay tribute to all the work they are doing.

Robert Buckland: In a perfect world, the victims of the Horizon IT scandal would have their cases individually assessed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Court of Appeal, but we are not in a perfect world. The scale of the miscarriage of justice is enormous, and there are hundreds of victims who understandably do not want to come forward because they have lost faith in the process. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor now consider the exceptional and unique step of legislating to quash the convictions?

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who speaks with such authority. The circumstances are truly exceptional. When I was a Back Bencher, I went on the record as saying that Horizon is the most serious miscarriage of justice since the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six. But the clue is that there were four in the Guildford case and six in the Birmingham case; we are talking about hundreds of people. The situation is truly exceptional and unprecedented, and it will need an appropriate resolution.

Tim Farron: Under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, victims of human trafficking who arrived in the UK via irregular routes would not have legal recourse to receive support under modern   slavery provisions. Are Ministers comfortable with that? They do not look like monsters, so I assume not. If they are not, what will they do about it?

Mike Freer: I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman and check exactly what the provisions are for legal aid under the Illegal Migration Act. I am more than happy to provide him with the details and meet him if necessary.

Bob Neill: Precisely because legislating to overturn convictions would be so unprecedented, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor make sure that before such a step is taken, he is satisfied from conversations with the senior judiciary that the means of triaging and consolidating appeals that currently exist may not be capable of delivering justice within an acceptable timeframe?

Alex Chalk: That is precisely the point, and my hon. Friend has put his finger on it. Of course, we would not want to stray into the normal lane of the judiciary; we have huge respect for our independent judiciary, who do an exceptionally good job of ensuring that there is fairness on the facts before them. As I have said, the case is wholly unprecedented, and we will want to have exhausted all alternatives before taking radical action.

Andrew Slaughter: Spending on housing legal aid has fallen by more than half in the past decade, from £44 million to £20 million. Is this a proper response to growing insecurity, overcrowding and poor conditions in the housing market, or might it be a contributing factor?

Mike Freer: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that just last year we invested an extra £10 million in housing legal aid, so I think we are addressing the issue.

Points of Order

Alex Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Financial Times is reporting that Teesworks Ltd—the so-called public-private partnership to redevelop the former steelworks site on Teesside—has reported an exceptional year, tripling its profits to £54 million. Sadly, the public will see very little of that hard cash, as under the Tees Tory Mayor, 90% of shares in the company were handed over to two local businessmen. That means they get £48.6 million, and the public get just £5.4 million. Personally, I think that is scandalous.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and I raised questions about the way that business is done at Teesworks, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ordered an inquiry, which was expected to have reported by now. Will you please advise me, Mr Speaker, on whether you have heard of any plans by the Secretary of State to come to the House to make a statement about why that report has been delayed and when we can expect it?

Lindsay Hoyle: I have had no indication from the Government that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement on this matter, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and I am sure he will pursue it in other ways. No doubt, if nothing is forthcoming, it might need an urgent question—that is a possible suggestion.

Penny Mordaunt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the convenience of the House, it may assist right hon. and hon. Members if I give some advance notice of Thursday’s business statement.
The business for the week commencing 15 January will include:
Monday 15 January—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill.
Tuesday 16 January—Committee of the whole House on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 17 January—Committee of the whole House on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill (day 2).
I will announce the business statement on Thursday in the usual way.

Lindsay Hoyle: While that was not a point of order for the Chair, I am sure the House will have heard the announcement by the Leader of the House with great interest. I call the shadow Leader of the House.

Lucy Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is this not just another example of this Government making it up as they go along, with no real plan, scrabbling around and trying to make something of this failed, unworkable plan? We have had at least three business statements or questions since the Bill first began to be timetabled. Would you not expect, Mr Speaker, such an announcement to be made in a business statement in the usual way?

Penny Mordaunt: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be helpful if I explain to the House that if I had waited to announce this for the first time on Thursday, there would have been very limited time for people to table amendments ahead of the normal tabling deadline. We are making this announcement to facilitate right hon. and hon. Members in tabling amendments, if they wish to do so. We do not wish to bring forward legislation that will not be successful. This is a matter of great importance to the general public, and we wish it to be successful. I hope the House will understand why we have given it a heads-up of the business for next week.

Angela Eagle: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Normally business statements allow Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers to ask questions of the Leader of the House. This is a difficult precedent because it does not give the Back Benchers a voice. Saying that it is just a matter of convenience for amendments is not good enough when the Government are in charge of the business and could have done this in a more organised way to give everybody a say. I think this is a deplorable development.

Lindsay Hoyle: In general, I would expect the House business to be announced via a statement or in response to the business question. It would of course be in order to ask questions about the timetabling of this business during Thursday’s business statement, but you have made the point and at least you have got it on the record. Let us move on.

Schools (Mental Health Professionals)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Munira Wilson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to require every school to have access to a qualified mental health professional; and for connected purposes.
Mr Speaker,
“He used to be such a lovely happy little boy and now he’s so sad. I’m terrified for his future. All I’ve ever wanted was to help my son and I’ve failed and fallen at every hurdle.”
Those are the anguished words of a constituent of mine who is mother to a nine-year-old. Week in and week out, I speak to parents whose children are struggling with their mental health and struggling to access appropriate support. When I speak to headteachers, they tell me that some of the most pressing challenges facing our education system come from outside the classroom, and mental health is among the biggest. Teachers often feel as though they are the fourth emergency service, filling the gap left by under-resourced services across the country.
Let us be clear: mental health services for young people before the pandemic were inadequate. Since the pandemic, despite the best efforts of everyone working in the sector, services are on their knees. The current generation of children have had to contend not only with rising pressures and judgments brought by social media, but with the huge consequences of a global pandemic. It is unsurprising that such challenges have taken their toll on children’s and young people’s mental health.
It is estimated that one in five children between the ages of seven and 16 has a probable mental health disorder. If six children in every classroom were diagnosed with a physical condition such as diabetes, there would rightly be a public outcry, and there would be no discussion about urgently putting both proper treatment and preventive measures in place. We would just do it. Mental health is no different and should not be treated any differently.
We must do everything in our power to ensure that every child arrives at school happy, healthy and ready to learn and thrive. My Bill provides one of the tools to help to achieve that. It would place a dedicated qualified mental health practitioner in every school—primary and secondary—giving every child in school access to care and support from the moment they start to need it.
Early intervention is crucial. Research tells us that half of all lifetime mental health disorders start before the age of 14. Stepping in as soon as warning signs start to show can often help to prevent conditions from becoming more severe. When Nicole, now aged 19, was struggling with her mental health, she had to wait a very long time before she could access any support. Describing that time, she said:
“Waiting for suitable mental health support meant that my whole life felt like it was paused and erased…I was left without suitable support and my mental health left to deteriorate.”
This story is not unique, nor is it unusual. I know that colleagues across the Chamber are aware of many similar stories in their own constituencies.
The state of our children and young people’s mental health is a significant and urgent challenge facing our country and, frankly, this Government are not taking it seriously enough. In December 2021, the Health and Social Care Committee warned that the combination of unmet need before the pandemic and additional needs created by the pandemic were significant. It said that the Government’s plans
“are simply not sufficient for the task at hand.”
In the two years since, there is no indication that their approach has improved. Last month, when I asked the mental health Minister, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), in a written question what proportion of mental health funding had been allocated to children and young people, I received an answer that such funds are not “separately identifiable.” How can a Government begin to take a problem seriously when they do not even know how much money they are spending on it?
Sadly, in the eyes of the Treasury children and young people are too often seen as a financial burden and a drain on Government resources, and that is just wrong. Spending on education and services to support our children is an investment in their future and our country’s future, and it is time that the Government recognised that.
The introduction of mental health support teams has been an encouraging step forward, but they are under-resourced and overstretched. Last year, I visited Carshalton Boys Sports College. I met MHST staff as well as some of the pupils they were supporting. The boys talked about how the team had helped them to learn coping techniques for anxiety and how to identify the techniques that work for them. The staff mentioned how important it was that they could intervene early before things escalate and children need other services, such as child and adolescent mental health services, but what struck me was that the team was stretched thinly across many local primary and secondary schools, which meant that their valuable skills and service were available only for half a day to one day per week in each school.
Furthermore, research by the Liberal Democrats revealed that by the end of this year half of secondary schools and three quarters of all primary schools in England will still have no access at all to mental health support teams. Instead, the role of supporting children’s mental ill health falls on teachers, who are already managing a heavy workload at the same time as contending with extremely overstretched budgets. With many schools struggling to afford the basics, sadly some of those that have found their own money for mental health support are being forced to cut back, which is why schools must not have to fund the provision themselves.
My Bill makes it clear that funding needs to be made available for the proposed statutory duty for all state schools. Using the “polluter pays” principle, Liberal Democrats have proposed funding mental health practitioners through tripling the digital services tax on our big social media companies, given the harm that they have contributed to our children’s mental health.
A big challenge currently facing schools is persistent absence, with the most recent Government data revealing that a fifth of children missed on average a day of school every fortnight last term. One of the most significant causal factors of absence is mental ill health. According to new data from YoungMinds, more than one in five children waiting for mental health support has missed more than six months of school.
Absence has a huge impact on a child’s education and ultimately their prospects. Three quarters of these children said that they had stopped exercising, doing hobbies and even seeing friends. These children should be carefree, enjoying themselves and spending time with loved ones; instead, their lives are being put on hold and their life chances being diminished because they cannot access the support they have so bravely asked for.
Just last week I heard of a pupil at a school in my constituency who is stuck in exactly that limbo. Despite desperately needing mental health support, they are stuck on a long CAMHS waiting list. In the meantime, not only has the child stopped attending school, but their mother said that they have not left the house in more than four months. A teacher at the school told me that they strongly believe that had there been the possibility of seeing a mental health professional at school on a regular basis, that pupil would still be attending school. Instead, their mental health is rapidly deteriorating, leaving those around them worried sick. Sadly, this is not uncommon—alarmingly, the headteacher of this pupil told me that it was just one example of many.
There is a tidal wave of mental ill health among our children and young people, which is jeopardising their wellbeing, education, prospects, and long-term health. A report commissioned by the Local Government Association, and undertaken by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition, asserted that there is
“a missed opportunity to significantly ease pressure on the system by increasing the availability of preventative and early intervention support.”
That is exactly what putting a mental health practitioner in every school would do. It would make mental health support accessible to every pupil, regardless of their age, where they live or their background. It would save our NHS money in the long term by tackling issues before they become more severe, and it would ensure that children’s mental health is supported early on, giving them the tools they need to be resilient and thrive into adulthood.
The Bill is an investment in our future and one that we must make, not just because it is sensible but because we owe it to this generation of children and young people—a generation that so often feels let down and neglected. I would like to end by thanking the young people, parents and teachers who have shared their stories with me, as well as the organisations that have supported me with the Bill, including YoungMinds, the Centre for Mental Health, Barnardo’s, Place2Be, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and the Sutton Trust. They are all dedicated to ensuring that every child has the right support in their time of need. The Bill would be a significant step towards achieving that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Munira Wilson, Ed Davey, Daisy Cooper, Helen Morgan, Layla Moran, Sarah Dyke, Richard Foord, Sarah Green, Sarah Olney, Tim Farron and Wera Hobhouse present the Bill.
Munira Wilson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 75).

Opposition Day - 2nd Allotted DayOpposition Day

NHS Dentistry

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Wes Streeting: I beg to move,
That this House recognises that NHS dentistry is in crisis, with eight in 10 dentists in England not taking on new NHS patients and vast parts of the country considered so-called dental deserts, where no dentists are available; regrets that this has led to people resorting to DIY dentistry or attending A&E to access urgent care; is concerned that tooth decay is the most common reason children aged six to 10 are admitted to hospital; and therefore calls on the Government to provide an extra 700,000 urgent appointments a year, introduce an incentive scheme to recruit new dentists to the areas most in need and a targeted supervised toothbrushing scheme for three to five year-olds to promote good oral health and reform the dental contract to rebuild the service in the long-run.
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
After 14 years of Conservative neglect and mismanagement,
“NHS dentistry in England is at its most perilous point in its 75-year history.”
That is the conclusion of the Nuffield Trust think-thank, and who can blame it? Eight in 10 NHS dentists no longer take new patients. According to the NHS, no dentist is taking on new adult patients in entire constituencies such as Broxtowe, Bolsover, Stoke-on-Trent South and Stroud. Five million patients tried but failed to get an appointment in the past two years. Millions more needed dental care but did not bother trying to book an appointment because they knew it would be impossible. Tooth decay is now the No. 1 reason why children aged six to 10 end up in hospital. We face the moral outrage of one in 10 Brits saying that they have been forced to attempt dentistry themselves because the NHS was not there for them when they needed it. This is Dickensian—DIY dentistry in 21st-century Britain. Is there any greater example of the decline that this country has been subjected to under the Conservatives?

Sarah Champion: May I add Rotherham to the list that my hon. Friend is quoting? To give an example, one of my constituents has been trying for more than a year to register with an NHS dentist. He has now had to go private for the consultation, which said:
“Your teeth are in a very poor condition with most of your remaining teeth decayed and unsaveable. All your teeth except 2 …need extracting.”
He has been living for more than a year on painkillers and soup. I have raised this with the Minister and got no satisfaction. This is what Tory Britain is doing to dentistry.

Wes Streeting: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We have heard so many heartbreaking stories like the one she mentions from her constituency. A service that once was there for all of us when we needed it is almost gone for good.

Anthony Mangnall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wes Streeting: I will, so that the hon. Gentleman can explain why that is the case.

Anthony Mangnall: Is there any greater landmine of a Labour legacy than the 2006 contract that it designed, which is pulling us down? Labour Members need look no further than their own designs on the NHS. We are sorting out their mess.

Wes Streeting: The sound you can hear, Mr Speaker, is the scraping of the barrel. How has the hon. Gentleman got the brass neck to stand up, after 14 years of his party in government, and say that a contract agreed in 2006 is the problem? If only the Conservatives had been in government for 14 years to sort it out.
Here is the other rub: we do not pretend that everything was perfect under the last Labour Government. In fact, reform of the NHS dentistry contract was in Labour’s 2010 manifesto, because we recognised that it needed to change. Had we been elected in 2010, we would have delivered. It was also in the Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto and 2015 manifesto. It was probably in the 2017 and 2019 manifestos, too, and they have not delivered. We have 14 years of Conservative failure. How dare the hon. Gentleman have the brass neck to stand up and blame someone else.

Jamie Stone: It is of great interest, is it not, that there is not one Member from the governing party in Scotland present for this debate? I can tell the House that dental services in my constituency in remote Scotland have gone backwards in a big way, and I am shocked that none of them are here to hear this.

Wes Streeting: It is deeply disappointing. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that as with the last Labour Government—13 years that created a rising tide that lifted all ships across the country, when we had an NHS with the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history—the next Labour Government will deliver a rising tide to benefit people across the country.

Alex Cunningham: The British Dental Association highlights that:
“Hormonal changes during pregnancy can make gums more vulnerable to plaque”,
and:
“Changes to dietary habits, and morning sickness”
can also impact on oral health. After being told of the importance of seeing a dentist after suffering multiple miscarriages, a constituent tells me that she has been struggling for three years to see a dentist within a 50-mile radius of her home. Dentists say that they are going private and are helping only with emergencies. Surely that is evidence of a colossal failure of Tory Government dental policy, and even the most vulnerable are suffering.

Wes Streeting: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, he has the ability, as the Labour MP for Stockton North, to speak for his residents. If only other people across the country had MPs standing up for them. Chris Webb, Labour’s candidate in Blackpool  South, reported to me that pregnant mothers have been telling him they cannot get an NHS dentist, despite being entitled to free NHS check-ups and treatment. Alice Macdonald, Labour’s candidate in Norwich North, reported similar conversations to me. Expectant mothers have told her that they have been travelling hundreds of miles to see a dentist when we know that pregnant women probably need that support more than many others. What an indictment of 14 years of Conservative Government.

Ben Bradshaw: Did my hon. Friend see the report in today’s Times that showed that NHS dentists are performing only 75% of the procedures they are contracted to do? In Devon and Somerset, where the situation is the worst in the country, it is only 26.5% and 30%. Not only have this Government delivered an NHS desert in Devon and Somerset, but they are wasting masses of public money. What is my hon. Friend going to do about it when he is Health Secretary?

Wes Streeting: I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. Things are so desperate. He mentioned the south-west in particular, and Devon and Cornwall have been particularly poorly served. Jayne Kirkham, Labour’s candidate in Truro and Falmouth for this year’s general election, reported to me that a local dentist handed their contract back before Christmas, meaning that 3,000 people lost their NHS dentist overnight. There are currently no dentists in Truro and Falmouth taking on adult NHS patients. Contract reform is urgent, so where is it? They have had 14 years, so where is the recovery plan that the Health Secretary mentions in her amendment?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Wes Streeting: I must make some progress.
Turning to other parts of the country, Keir Cozens, Labour’s candidate in Great Yarmouth, has been running a campaign on the state of dentistry in Great Yarmouth. He has heard heartbreaking stories of broken teeth left for months with people in pain, of children unable to be seen, of at least one person a day going to accident and emergency with dental issues, and of people performing DIY dentistry at home after buying kits from Amazon. No one should be doing that, but people are desperate. DIY dentistry does not work, and before you know it, people are back in A&E waiting for expensive emergency dental treatment. I have heard similar stories from Kevin Bonavia, Labour’s candidate in Stevenage. He tells me that people turning to DIY is shockingly common.
No one voted for this. None of the five Conservative Prime Ministers, the seven Conservative Chancellors or the eight Conservative Health Secretaries told the public that this was what the future held, but this is what they have done to dentistry. It is the way all our public services are going, and it is why the Conservative party cannot be allowed five more years to finish the job.

Jim Shannon: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this debate forward. The stats from the British Dental Association cannot be ignored. In its survey, 41% of practice owners and 38% of associate dentists said that they would like to leave NHS dentistry as soon as possible. This debate will resonate with many people out there. Does he agree with the chair of the Northern Ireland Dental Practice  Committee that now is the time for the funding allocation to pay for a better contract and for training more dedicated dentists who will commit to the NHS, rather than private practice?

Wes Streeting: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the urgency of the situation. There is a different path available to us. We can revive our public services and give our country back what we used to take for granted. Labour’s plan would take immediate steps to rescue NHS dentistry, with 700,000 more urgent appointments and the recruitment of new dentists in the areas most in need. We would also take the necessary steps to rebuild NHS dentistry over the long term, including reforming the dental contract and introducing supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds in primary schools, so that poor oral health is prevented and demands on the service reduced.
In fact, some of my Labour colleagues are not even waiting for the general election to start making a difference. Labour’s candidate in Stroud, Simon Opher—himself a GP—has spearheaded a campaign working with local dentists and the integrated care board. From opposition, he has more than trebled the number of emergency appointments available each day across Gloucestershire, pioneered a new dental stabilisation scheme for people not known to a local practice, opening up more than 130 appointments a week, and introduced supervised toothbrushing in 14 local primary schools. If that is the difference Simon is making in opposition, imagine what he will be able to do as a Labour MP working with a Labour Government. That Government cannot come soon enough.

Catherine West: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree with me and my constituent in Crouch End who has not had a check-up since 2019 that the link between poor oral health and oral cancer is serious? That could be contributing to the terrible problem we have with cancer waiting times.

Wes Streeting: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Prevention is better than cure. It is a truism, and it is also the foundation pillar of what would be Labour’s 10-year plan for reform and modernisation of our national health service. A part of that plan is before the House today, and Government Members will have to explain to their constituents, only months, if not weeks away from a general election, why they are refusing to support it.
The Government’s amendment to the motion promises that the dental recovery plan is coming soon, but it was due last summer; now, they cannot put a date on when the plan will arrive, when it will be implemented or even say what it is. Conservative Ministers have taken a look at the state of NHS dentistry, at the millions of people across the country who cannot get an appointment to see a dentist and at children in their own constituencies whose teeth are rotting, and their conclusion is: what is the rush? Let me tell them why they should get their skates on.
A 17-year-old boy in Plymouth had to undergo emergency surgery on an abscess in his mouth last year. He spent two months trying to book an NHS dentist—he  said that he was on hold for about three hours per day. According to figures on the NHS website, no dentists are taking on new NHS patients in the Plymouth, Moor View constituency. It was left too late, and when he finally got the healthcare he needed, he required emergency surgery, which has left him scarred for life.
In Worthing West, Labour’s candidate Dr Beccy Cooper told me of an 82-year-old great-grandfather on pension credit who told her that he will not be going back to an NHS dentist before he dies. He tried to get an NHS dentist in Worthing, but no one will take him on the NHS to receive low-cost treatment. Dr Beccy Cooper also tells me that residents who cannot get a dentist are being told to look for one in Hampshire, more than 60 miles away from where they live.

Ian Lavery: On that important point, a couple who moved into new housing in my constituency tried to get an NHS dentist for over a year without any success whatsoever. They have got two options: they either go private or use their previous dentist, who is 20 miles away. That is wholly unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend simply explain how Labour’s plan will eradicate this unacceptable issue?

Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will have: 700,000 appointments, making a difference straightaway; supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds to reduce future demand on NHS services; and reform of the NHS dentistry contract so that we can rebuild an NHS dentistry service worthy of the name. That change cannot come soon enough.

Emma Hardy: My constituent Amy has been in contact with me about the difficulties that she and her five children have had getting NHS dentist appointments. She explained that her husband was in the military and therefore they had to move home frequently, and each time they moved they found it harder to get an NHS dentist. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a shameful way to treat people who have served and given so much to our country?

Wes Streeting: I agree. I am afraid that when it comes to serving personnel and veterans, there is a gulf between what the Government say and promise and what they do; that is not the only example.
One thing not in the Government’s amendment to Labour’s motion is a pledge to protect the NHS dentistry budget. That is odd, because the Prime Minister promised to do exactly that 18 months ago. The truth is that the Prime Minister broke that pledge in November when he gave the go-ahead for dentistry underspends to be raided, effectively waving the white flag on the future of the service. Can you believe it? Despite everything we have heard, there are dentistry underspends, and the Prime Minister thinks that other things are greater priorities than this crisis. The consequences of that decision are now being felt. The budget in some areas of the country is running out and dentists are having to stop NHS work for the remainder of the year. It is so deeply frustrating.
NHS dentists want to do more NHS work; it is the Government who are standing in their way. The Nuffield Trust’s stark report into the crisis suggested that NHS  dentistry may have to be scaled back and made available only to the least well-off. Such an approach would be the end of NHS dentistry as a universal public service, yet that is exactly the approach that the Government are piloting in Cornwall. Children, the over-80s and those with specific health needs are given treatment; everyone else has to go private or go without. They will not admit it, but this is the future under the Tories: further neglect, decline and patients made to go without.
Worse still, NHS dentistry is the ghost of Christmas yet to come under the Tories. That is not partisan overreaction on our part; that is according to the lead author of the Nuffield Trust’s report. He wrote:
“For the wider health system, the lessons are troubling: without political honesty and a clear strategy, the same long-term slide from aspiration to reality could happen in other areas of primary care too.”
What has happened to NHS dentistry under the Tories is coming to the rest of the NHS if they are given another five years. That is not the continuity that the country is looking for—it is looking for change with Labour.

Wera Hobhouse: My Bath constituency is also described as an NHS dental desert. The only option for people is to go private. The hon. Member has already said that it is Dickensian. Does he agree that it is not just a health problem but an equalities issue that the Government fail to recognise?

Wes Streeting: I totally agree. In fact, Claire Hazelgrove, Labour’s candidate in Filton and Bradley Stoke—next-door to the forthcoming by-election—was telling me about problems in her constituency and that exact challenge of people being left without or having to go private. One patient told her that her dental practice was now only seeing private patients. That same patient cares for her 84-year-old dad with dementia, who needed a tooth removal to allow him to eat. His appointment was also cancelled. That is what is happening before our eyes.
What of those who cannot afford it? Anna Dixon, Labour’s candidate in Shipley, told me of a woman in her town who had been turned away as an NHS patient and could not afford to go private. She was struggling with pain, it was affecting her eating, and she was at her wits’ end. With the Tories, if you have not got the money, you have not got the care.

Kerry McCarthy: As a neighbouring MP, I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Claire Hazelgrove, our candidate in Filton and Bradley Stoke, who is doing tremendous work on this. I have done a survey of my constituency and have found that about 98% of Bristol NHS practices are not taking on new patients. One issue I have also come across is that, even when people do have access to an NHS dentist, they cannot afford even those lower fees, and as a result they are being removed from the active patient list and losing access to that. We can understand how, during the cost of living crisis, people might delay a check-up for a few months because there are so many other pressing demands on their budgets.

Wes Streeting: I totally agree, and I do not think we should be complacent about this as a country. The NHS is already becoming a two-tier healthcare system, where  those who can afford to go private are paying and the rest are left with an increasingly poor service for poor people. Government Members protest now, but they admit their goals once they leave the Department for Health and Social Care. The Health Secretary’s predecessors may not have said it when they were in her place at the Dispatch Box, but, as soon as they were out the door of the Department, the right hon. Members for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) said what they really believe: patients should be charged for GP appointments. Well, why stop there with this Conservative philosophy? Why not go further? That is the future for the health service if the Conservative party is given another five years. That is the risk facing patients across the country, and that is the choice facing voters at the next general election: further neglect, mismanagement and decline under the Conservatives or change with Labour and a decade of national renewal.
On NHS dentistry, the need for change could not be clearer. By the Conservative party’s own admission, it does not have a plan—just the vague promise of one coming in the future. All it does have is a record of 14 years of failure. If we stick to the current path, full universal access to NHS dentistry may be gone for good. The Conservatives may be happy to wave goodbye to this vital public service, but that is not the Labour way. With Labour, there is a clear plan, with immediate steps to tackle the crisis and long-term reform to rebuild dentistry. There will be more appointments, more dentists, more support for children and long-term reform to put the service on a sustainable footing, paid for by abolishing the non-dom tax status. That is because Labour believes that people who live and work in Britain should pay their taxes here, too. It does not matter whether they live on Downing Street or any other street: if they make their money here in Britain, they should pay their taxes here, too.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Abby Lane, in my constituency, has contacted over 30 dental practices. Not one is accepting her and her one-year-old child, who desperately needs dental treatment. Is it not the case that we now need to reform the system so that local commissioners can ensure that dental commissioning is happening in local areas where there is need, and not just have this patchwork system where dentists are fleeing because it is not paying well enough?

Wes Streeting: I totally agree. The tragedy is that if we look at the system as a whole and think about the pressure the whole system is under, and if we got NHS dentistry right, we would not only be saving patients untold pain, but saving the NHS money. As Lucy Rigby, Labour’s candidate in Northampton North, reported to me, in 2022 tooth decay forced 625 of her local patients to A&E—worse for them and more expensive for the taxpayer.
If Tory Members disagree with charging non-doms their fair share, maybe they could explain in their own contributions why they disagree. I am sure that their constituents would love to hear their defence of the non-doms, and we would be happy to give them space on Labour leaflets to quote their arguments back at them and let the public decide. I would particularly like to know why the Prime Minister is so wedded to this tax break for the wealthiest.
While Tory Members are set to oppose Labour’s rescue motion today, I understand that our plan on supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds has received an endorsement from an unlikely source. On his podcast, former Conservative Chancellor George Osborne said:
“That really is the nanny-state in action.”
Coming from the Chancellor who introduced a sugar tax, I am sure George meant that as a compliment. Of course, Conservative Members may not see it the same way, just as they do not agree with Labour’s proposal to phase out smoking for children. Don’t worry, we have the Prime Minister’s back on that one; it is, after all, our proposal. But I ask those who attack our plan as nanny-state, what is the alternative? If a child cannot see a dentist and their parents will not do the responsible thing and make sure they clean their teeth, then should we just shrug our shoulders and do nothing while children’s teeth rot?
The problem for the small-statists on the Conservative Benches is this. Too many children today are not cleaning their teeth. Their teeth are rotting and they end up having them pulled out in hospital, which is worse for them and more expensive for the taxpayer. Last year, the NHS spent £80 million on tooth extraction. Toothbrushing in schools would cost a fraction of that, yet the Conservatives choose to waste taxpayers’ money, burning through taxpayers’ cash on the altar of ideological dogma and putting children through unnecessary misery, because it fits their confused ideology.
That is the irony of the Conservative party. Tories say that they believe in a small state and low taxes, yet they have left our country with the highest tax burden since the 1950s. The NHS receives £169 billion a year, yet it is going through the biggest crisis in its history. Because they do not understand that prevention is better than cure. Because they have refused to undertake meaningful reform. Because they treat taxpayers’ money with utter carelessness and contempt. And so they have left us with an NHS that gets to people too late, delivering worse care for patients at greater cost to the taxpayer. We are paying more and getting less. That is Tory Britain. No wonder Tory candidates are so worried.
Before this debate, I happened on a letter on Facebook from the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) who is, happily, in his place. First he talks about the state of dentistry in his constituency—we obviously agree with him there—and then he says:
“I was shocked to learn at the end of last year that little to no progress has been made by the Health Board in our region who are responsible for commissioning this service to you.”
Let us assume it was in anticipation of Labour’s motion, which he is going to vote against because the Whip has been cracked. He goes on to say:
“I have today written to the Chief Executive following on from the meetings I had last year, and will be raising this issue in today’s dentistry debate in the House of Commons.”
What that is, and what voters will see it for, is just one of what will no doubt be countless examples of Tory MPs and Tory Ministers, after 14 years of their failure and mismanagement, pointing the finger of blame at someone else, hoping that voters in Darlington and elsewhere will blame local NHS managers and local NHS commissioners   for 14 years of failure. If it is really the case that his integrated care board is to blame for why people in Darlington cannot get a dentist, why are people struggling in Newcastle-under-Lyme? Why are they struggling in Northampton North? Why are they struggling in Shipley? Why are they struggling in Filton and Bradley Stoke? Why are they struggling in Worthing West, Stroud, Stevenage, Great Yarmouth, Truro and Falmouth, Blackpool South, Stockton South and every other constituency in the country? Stop blaming other people for your Government’s failures.

Peter Gibson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I appreciate that he gave me notice that he was going to mention my constituency. What he failed to do in his contribution was read out the letter in full. He has also not anticipated the full content of my speech, which highlights all the work I have been doing in my constituency to tackle the failure by the ICB to deliver the missing contract.

Wes Streeting: I could quote the full letter, but it does not help the hon. Gentleman. He misses the fundamental point. This is not just a failure in Darlington. This is not just a problem in the north-east of England. It is the south-west of England, it is the south-east of England, it is the west midlands, it is the east midlands, it is the north-west, it is Cumbria—it is right across the country. In fact, even in London, my city, which has the best NHS dentistry provision in the country—so much for levelling up—dentistry is still in a poor condition. That is why people in Darlington are looking to Labour and, I hope, Lola McEvoy, to take responsibility, show some leadership, back good Labour policies and rescue NHS dentistry in Darlington. The general election cannot come soon enough.
The choice is clear. Under the Tories, NHS dentistry is dying a slow death. The only chance for survival is change with Labour. Labour’s plan will deliver: 700,000 more dental appointments a year for those most in need; new dentists recruited to dental deserts where there is not a single dentist taking on new patients; toothbrushing in primary school for three to five year-olds to promote good health and prevent demand on the NHS; and reform of the dental contract after 14 years of failure, so that once again every patient who needs a dentist can get one. Politics is about choices. Labour chooses to rescue NHS dentistry, not give the wealthiest a tax break. Labour’s plan is fully costed, fully funded, and will make a real difference to people across the country. The Tories have left our country toothless. Labour will give our country its smile back and give its NHS back, too.

Victoria Atkins: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“recognises the impact of a once-in-a-generation pandemic on NHS dental services, with 7 million fewer patients seen in England across 2020 and 2021; notes these challenges were reflected in both Scotland and Wales; acknowledges the steps already taken to recover services in England including the introduction of a minimum rate and increased payments for complex dental activity to better reward dentists for their work; welcomes the publication of the Long Term Workforce Plan which committed to expanding dental training places by 40 per cent; and supports the upcoming publication of the Government’s plan to further recover and reform NHS dentistry and promote good oral health throughout life.”
It is a pleasure to update the House on the work the Government are doing to strengthen NHS dentistry across the country. We are reforming our NHS and social care system to make it faster, simpler and fairer. Dentistry is a vital part of our NHS and improving dentistry is one of my top priorities. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) represents a deeply urban seat, so I am pleased that he has presented me with an excuse to boast about the fact that I represent, and am very proud to represent, a rural and coastal constituency. That is why fairness is one of my three priorities for our NHS. I know the challenges that rural and coastal communities face when it comes to accessing an NHS dentist appointment, and the disparities in health that we see between rural and coastal communities and city centres. I will come to some statistics in a moment.
I am determined to fix these issues, and the other problems facing NHS dentistry, so that anyone who needs to can always see an NHS dentist, no matter where they live. Indeed, one of my very first acts as Secretary of State was to respond to the Health and Social Care Committee’s recommendations on dentistry. We agreed to the majority of those recommendations, and we stand firmly behind the ambition that NHS dentistry should be accessible and available to all who need it.

Helen Morgan: rose—

Richard Foord: rose—

Victoria Atkins: I am going to make a little progress, but I promise to give way later.
The whole House understands that the pandemic placed a long-lasting and heavy burden on NHS dentistry. [Interruption.] I hear groans from Opposition Members, but they cannot ignore the fact that some 7 million people did not come forward for appointments during that long period of the pandemic because dentists had to shut, and we were unable to accommodate those needs within the system because of the severe strictures under which we were all placed as a society. We shepherded the sector through the pandemic with £1.7 billion of direct support to compensate for NHS activity that could not be delivered. As we recover from the pandemic there are no quick fixes, but our recovery is well under way. Let me give the latest statistics, because the hon. Member for Ilford North missed them out in his speech. The Government delivered 6 million more courses of NHS dental treatment in 2022-23 than in the previous year. [Interruption.] In the two years to June 2023, the number of adults seeing a dentist increased by 1.7 million compared to the number in the previous year, and 800,000 more children saw a dentist in the year to June 2023.
Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. While I was reading out those statistics they were saying, “You cannot make those comparisons because of the pandemic”, but that is the point: people did not come forward during the pandemic, so, as we must all know from experience in our own constituencies, there is a backlog that dentists around the country are having to work through—and they are making progress.

Angela Eagle: rose—

Victoria Atkins: In fairness, I will give way to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) first, because she rose earlier.

Helen Morgan: Like the Secretary of State, I represent a rural community, and the reason dentists are handing back their NHS contracts where I live is that they cannot recruit another dentist to come and help them. They have not had a day off, they cannot meet their commitments under their contracts, and they cannot recruit. They have offered golden hellos of 25%, but they have not been able to get anyone to come and work with them. What will the Secretary of State do to recruit the dentists whom we need to see the people in dental deserts such as North Shropshire?

Victoria Atkins: As I have explained, in relation to dentistry but also in relation to wider healthcare, the long-term workforce plan, which was requested by NHS England and by clinicians, is the means of laying those foundations for the future of the NHS. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle).

Angela Eagle: I thank the Secretary of State. I wanted to intervene earlier when she was talking about the pandemic. In my constituency many people were thrown off their dentists’ lists during the pandemic, often with no notice, and then found that they could not register anywhere else. That is what happened, I believe, all over the country. Can the Minister explain what she is going to do about it? It was not that people were not visiting their dentists; they were denied access.

Victoria Atkins: The hon. Lady has raised an interesting and important point, because, of course, dentists are independent contractors to the NHS, and I have to work with the levers that are available to me. As I have said, we have already invested £1.7 billion to try to help with the recovery, and the House will, I hope, look forward to our dentistry recovery plan when it comes to other ways in which we can improve that. The important point, however, is that because those dentists are independent contractors, we must work with the profession to encourage them back to the NHS to offer the services that we all want to see.

John Hayes: Is not the root of the problem the contracts that the NHS has with dentists? The roots of that, of course, lie with the previous Government, a Labour Government, rather as they do with the GP contracts. Does my right hon. Friend not need to revisit the genesis of this problem, as well as training more dentists here in the UK?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my right hon. Friend, and indeed my friend, my Lincolnshire neighbour, who knows as well as I do the pressures that we face in ensuring that our constituents receive the same quality of care that we expect across England. He was right to draw attention to the—I would argue—badly drafted contract of 2006, but he also touched on the complexity involved in finding systems that would work better.

Wes Streeting: rose—

Victoria Atkins: I cannot wait to reach the part of my speech that will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions, but first I will allow him to intervene, because I enjoy this back and forth.

Wes Streeting: So do I. The Secretary of State is far more entertaining than her predecessor. Given that she is painting a picture of improvement, how does she explain the story in The Times which revealed that NHS dentistry activity is now falling in 2023-24 compared with 2022-23? Is it not the case that things are going backwards rather than forwards? How does the Secretary of State explain that, and when are we going to see her plan?

Victoria Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because according to the latest statistics available to me, 18.1 million adults were seen by an NHS dentist in the 24 months up to 30 June 2023. That is an increase of 10%, and what does it mean in reality? It means that over 1.7 million more adults were seen than in the previous year. I know that we are all concerned about the health of children; some 6.4 million children were seen by an NHS dentist in the 12 months up to 30 June 2023, an increase of 14%, which means, in real terms, an increase of 800,000 on the previous year.
I accept, of course, that there is more to do, and we will be setting that out in our dental recovery plan shortly, but this is not just about big numbers. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks when “shortly” will be. As he knows full well, “shortly” is a little shorter than “in due course” and a little longer than “imminently”.
We have introduced several simple and effective measures to improve the nation’s dental health. The Health and Care Act 2022 made it simpler to expand water fluoridation schemes, because raising the fluoride level to 1 mg per litre is a straightforward way to prevent tooth decay. It has proved effective in parts of England as well as Canada, the United States, Ireland and Australia, and the chief medical officer has concluded that there is “strong scientific evidence” that water fluoridation can drive down the “prevalence of tooth decay”.

Anthony Mangnall: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the progress that has been made, while, obviously, recognising that there is more to be done. I wonder if she will help me to ask the shadow Minister to correct the record. He said that in 2010 and 2015 Labour had a plan for dental practice, but there is no mention of that in the Labour manifestos. I will come back and correct that if necessary, but the hon. Gentleman is out there stating that Labour has had a plan for dental recovery since 2010, and that is not in those manifestos.

Victoria Atkins: My goodness me! My hon. Friend has identified a “cavity” in the shadow Minister’s so-called plans.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Victoria Atkins: I am going to make some progress.
I am very pleased that, subject to a public consultation which will be published shortly, we have secured funding to expand water fluoridation schemes across the north-east of England. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ilford North may be interested to know why we have identified the north-east, given that he read out so many constituency names in his speech. The north-east was chosen because  natural fluoride levels there are among the lowest in the country, and the proportion of five-year-olds with teeth extracted because of tooth decay is among the highest. We have wanted to address that very real health inequality to ensure that more than 1.6 million people in the area can benefit from this expansion, subject, as I have said, to a public consultation.
Supervised tooth brushing has been raised. That has indeed been proven to drive down oral health inequalities, which is why we have already introduced a toolkit that local authorities are using to introduce supervised tooth brushing across schools, nurseries and family hubs. We have been clear that we want to see that happening in more areas. I would encourage any colleague who is concerned about that, rather than waiting for some mythical date in the future, to ask our local authorities whether they are using these toolkits, because they are freely available, and they can and should put them in place.

Catherine West: The Secretary of State rightly talks about prevention, but what about the opposite, where rates of oral cancer have gone up because prevention has not been in place? What assessment has she made? If she does not have the data to hand, will she write to me with the assessment that the Department of Health and Social Care has made of the link between failure on prevention and cancer?

Victoria Atkins: I thank the hon. Lady, and particularly for the constructive tone of her intervention, because she is right. This is not simply about teeth health; it is also about the conditions that dentists check for—probably without anyone quite realising that they are doing so. I will take the hon. Lady up on her invitation to write to her on the figures, but that is why we are looking at health inequalities across the country and, importantly, focusing on encouraging dentists to re-register with the NHS if they have left, because it is vital for tackling much wider health conditions in addition to the pain and discomfort that tooth decay can bring.

Ashley Dalton: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Victoria Atkins: No, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and then I will make some progress.

James Wild: My right hon. Friend mentioned levers. One issue facing recruitment in North West Norfolk is the time involved in getting on to the NHS performers list. Newly in post, will she look at that issue and bring forward proposals as part of the plan to speed up that process and boost recruitment?

Victoria Atkins: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. His intervention shows the level of detail that colleagues on the Conservative Benches have gone into in trying to address the understandable concerns that local NHS providers are voicing. I will look into that. I am very keen on my three words: faster, simpler, fairer. I want to make it as simple as possible for dentists to rejoin and join the NHS. I will say more on that later.
The choice of whether patients are offered NHS exams and treatment lies with the dentists, who are independent contractors to the NHS. As well as making simple, common-sense changes, in July 2022 we announced  a package of far-reaching reforms to make NHS work more attractive to dentists. We have created more bands for units of dental activity, so that dentists are properly rewarded for taking on more complex care, and the best-performing practices can see more NHS patients.
Previously, regardless of the amount of time the dentist took on each patient, they received the same payment for every individual treatment package in band 2, which covers fillings and tooth extraction. Perversely, that meant they received the same payment for doing one filling as for three. That left many dentists unable to afford to take on patients who had not seen a dentist for some time and therefore needed extensive treatment. That needed to be put right for the sake of both patients and dentists. Thanks to our reforms, dentists now receive five units of dental activity when they treat three or more teeth, which is a significant increase from the old maximum of three. Root canal treatment on molar teeth is now rewarded with seven units of dental activity, as opposed to three, meeting one of the British Dental Association’s key demands.
We also recognise the barriers that too many communities have faced when accessing NHS dentistry, with people left phoning around practices to see who was taking on NHS patients. That is why we have made it a contractual requirement for dentists to update the NHS website regularly, making it clear whether their practices are taking on new patients, as well as explaining the services that they offer, thus making it easier for patients to find a dentist that can deliver the care they need. These reforms have improved access to dentistry and ensured that the system better supports dentists and their teams, so they were well received by dentists, their representatives and patient groups across England, with Healthwatch’s national director recognising that these reforms show that the Government are listening to patients and taking action, and these reforms can help ensure that dental care is accessible and affordable to everyone who needs it.

Wera Hobhouse: I am pleased to hear about some of the reforms that we have raised in this Chamber many times, particularly on changing the dental contracts and units of dental activity, but may I raise another point? In official workplace data, dentists who do just one NHS check-up a year are counted the same as an NHS full-timer. Does the Secretary of State recognise that that is a problem, because that workplace data hides the scale of the problem?

Victoria Atkins: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes a fair point about measuring within the system how much work NHS dentists are doing. As I say, we are looking at all of this in the work that we are doing on the dentistry recovery plan. I repeat that I want to make it as simple as possible for dentists to register with the NHS, to continue offering the care that we all want them to, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention.

Seema Malhotra: rose—

Victoria Atkins: I am going to plough on, I am afraid.
Earlier, Labour Front Benchers—perhaps not understanding that they were doing so—set out the philosophical difference between our two parties on  how to grow the economy. As our economy grows, we on the Conservative side of the House want to attract the best and the brightest from around the world to work in our NHS, in our tech sector, in our life sciences industry, in our movie industry—hon. Members may know that it filmed “Barbie” this year—and in many other thriving industries. Labour, however, apparently wants to shut the door by taxing such people on earnings they make outside the UK. I speak, of course, of non-domiciled tax status.
If I may correct the hon. Member for Ilford North, because I appreciate that he has not spent any time on the Front Bench, last year alone non-domiciled taxpayers paid £8 billion in UK taxes on their UK earnings. That is equivalent to more than 230,000 nurses. Labour wants to put that at risk and put the UK at a disadvantage in the highly paid, highly competitive, highly mobile international labour market. This really is yet another branch of the magic money tree that Labour has always been looking for, to which they apparently want to add £28 billion a year of taxes or increased borrowing and increased inflation.
How they want to spend this money is interesting as well, because in 2022 Labour promised that their non-domiciled taxation would fund a workforce plan. Last September, it became breakfast club meals. Then, by October, it had morphed into 2 million hospital appointments and MRI and CT scanners. Now, apparently, it is funding a dentistry plan. One wonders how all these magic branches on the magic money tree will add up to all the promises made so far.

Wes Streeting: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Victoria Atkins: I will resist, but only because I am going to ask the hon. Gentleman to intervene in a moment—he should be careful what he wishes for. I also notice that he talked about reform of the dental contract but did not give any detail. Government is not as easy as selling a book. It cannot be cut and pasted from Wikipedia, as some on the Labour Front Bench seem to like to do. It is about being clear on what you would do differently. Now, Labour in Wales is of course running the Welsh NHS. They do like to do things differently. People there are almost twice as likely to be waiting for health treatment as in England.

Virginia Crosbie: The Leader of the Opposition states that the Labour Government in Wales is a blueprint for what Labour can do in the UK. Given that 97% of high street dentists in Wales state that Labour’s reforms are not working, does the Secretary of State agree that NHS dentistry is being destroyed by Labour in Wales, and that if Wales is their blueprint for UK dentistry, we should all be very afraid?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend, who represents a Welsh constituency. The chair of the British Dental Association wrote to the Labour Welsh Government to complain about their plan and, I understand, used words such as “toxic mix of underinvestment” and “untested targets.” The picture in Wales, if it is the Leader of the Opposition’s blueprint, is perhaps not as convincing as the shadow Health Secretary would have us believe.
The fundamental difference between the current systems in England and Labour-run Wales is that Wales has a capitated list system for dentistry. I am willing to give way so that the shadow Health Secretary can clarify whether he wants to bring in that system.

Wes Streeting: I cannot believe that is meant to be the right hon. Lady’s big “Gotcha.” She cannot even tell us when she will bring forward her plan, let alone what is in it. They have had 14 years to come up with a plan. This is absolutely astonishing. As much as I enjoy these partisan knockabouts at the Dispatch Box, the sight of the Health Secretary giggling and laughing at her own jokes will be of small comfort to people who are literally pulling out their own teeth.

Victoria Atkins: Just to cut through all the froth, the hon. Gentleman has not, in fact, answered my invitation. Does he wish to have a capitated list system, as they have in Wales, or does he have other plans? Could he please answer?

Wes Streeting: Like any responsible Government, we would consult the dentistry profession, the BDA, and come up with a serious programme for dentistry reform. If the right hon. Lady wants to ask me questions and have me answer them, the Government should call a general election and I will happily oblige.

Victoria Atkins: Again, cutting through the froth, the hon. Gentleman called this debate and has not set out his plan. He knows full well that this is an Opposition day debate and I am responding to Labour’s motion by moving an amendment. He has no plan on dentistry. When I asked him to clarify whether he will follow the capitated system in Wales, he declined to answer. I assume that is because he knows we tested a prototype system based on the Welsh capitation approach here in England, and the results were clear. It worsened access and widened oral health inequalities.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the Nuffield Trust, placing great emphasis on it, in his opening speech. As he agrees so much with the Nuffield Trust’s report, does he also agree with its former chief executive who said that his ideas on general practice represent
“an out of date view”
and “will cost a fortune”?
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Labour party’s approach to our NHS is empty words about reform followed by the phrase “funded by non-doms.” We are very lucky in this country—on this side of the House we consider ourselves blessed—to have incredible dentists working across the NHS.
Here are some facts for Opposition Members. There are now 1,352 more dentists working in the NHS than 14 years ago, thanks to the stewardship of this Conservative Government. I thank them and their colleagues for everything they do, and we are backing them to build a brighter future for NHS dentistry by taking concrete steps to improve recruitment and retention. That is why our long-term workforce plan, the first in NHS history, will expand dentistry training places by 40%, providing more than 1,100 places by 2031, which will be the highest level on record under any Government.
Over the same period, this Government’s plan will also increase training places for dental therapists and hygiene professionals to more than 500. The importance of the long-term workforce plan to dentistry’s future was recognised across the sector, and Professor Kirsty Hill, who chairs the Dental Schools Council, backed our plan:
“Expansion is a significant and positive development, and we commend the government for recognising the importance of increasing dental hygiene and dental therapist positions. These roles play a vital role in enhancing capacity and improving care.”

Debbie Abrahams: I find it absolutely extraordinary that the Health Secretary lectured the shadow Health Secretary on calling a debate to hold this Government to account. Twelve million people are not able to access dental care, including thousands in my Oldham constituency.

James Wild: What’s your plan?

Debbie Abrahams: You are the Government, unless you want to call a general election.

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Lady knows that she must not refer directly to other Members.

Victoria Atkins: I think the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) was raising her voice at me, but it was not me who heckled her. I recognise the passion she brings to her intervention, and I simply made the point that this is an Opposition day debate. The hon. Member for Ilford North understandably set out some of his plans, which is his job, and I was merely questioning him on the detail of those plans. Sadly, he was not able to provide that detail.
The long-term workforce plan is about not just training more staff but delivering value for hard-working taxpayers. Currently, around a third of dentists do not carry out any NHS work. This simply is not fair on the taxpayers who fund their training, which is why, through the long-term workforce plan, we are exploring the introduction of a tie-in period that encourages dentists, after they graduate, to spend a minimum proportion of their time delivering NHS care. We have also made it easier for experienced dentists from around the world to come to the UK to ply their trade, which is apparently something with which Labour Members do not agree.
Last year, we brought forward legislation to give the General Dental Council greater flexibility in administering the overseas registration exam. The Government welcome its decision to triple the capacity of the next three sittings of part one of the ORE, from August last year, and to increase the number of sittings of the second part of the exam from three to four, creating an additional 1,300 places. Ministers will continue to meet the GDC to discuss how we can make these flexibilities as effective as possible, to get more dentists into the NHS workforce delivering care for patients.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. It is worth repeating that the Nuffield Trust has warned that NHS dentistry is at its most perilous point in its 75-year history. That goes alongside recent Healthwatch polling suggesting that one in 10 people in England have ended up paying for private dental treatment  in the last 12 months because they could not find an NHS dentist. It has been the same in my constituency, where the majority of dental surgeries are not taking on new patients. Can the Secretary of State explain how on earth things have got this bad?

Victoria Atkins: I trust that the hon. Lady has been listening to the whole debate, because I set this out in some detail at the beginning of my speech. I will not repeat the impact of the pandemic, but I hope she has taken on board the £1.7 billion of investment that has already seen a sizeable increase in the number of adults and children being treated by NHS dentistry.
I do not pretend that this is the full stop at the end of the sentence. We have a plan and I look forward to our debate when that plan is published, because I suspect it will be welcomed across the House.

Dominic Raab: I commend my right hon. Friend for her powerful speech. The plan will improve financial incentives for NHS dentists and support practices to take on new patients, but to what extent will she and the plan take on board high operating costs and, indeed, the high cost of living in areas where there is high demand for NHS dentistry?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I can imagine that the concerns he outlines are very pressing in his constituency, and one important priority behind the dental recovery plan work is addressing health inequalities. Although I have spoken about rural and coastal areas from a constituency perspective, we also understand, of course, that there are differing cost of living pressures in different parts of the country. He makes an important point about the costs for NHS dentists operating in very expensive parts of the country, such as his constituency, and I thank him for doing so.
Our workforce is not just made up of dentists; dental care in England could not function without the vital contribution of dental and orthodontic therapists, dental hygienists, dental nurses and clinical dental technicians. We recognise the importance of harnessing the skills and knowledge of all those professionals. They can support dentists to carry out first-class care, and we must empower them to take on more responsibility and to work at the top of their licences. That is why last year we issued guidance to NHS practices, supporting them to make the most of everyone in the dental team and make a difference to patient care. Since then, NHS England has made it clear that dental therapists and dental hygienists can provide patients with direct care, provided they are appropriately qualified, competent and indemnified. We have also run a consultation to enable dental therapists and hygienists to deliver more treatments. That will boost access to care for patients and support dentists, and we will be setting out our next steps shortly.

Grahame Morris: rose—

Victoria Atkins: I am conscious that Opposition Members will want time today, so I am going to bring my remarks to a close. It is my mission, as Health and Social Care Secretary, to build an NHS that is faster, simpler and fairer, and of course I include dentistry in that work. We have taken the long-term decisions that will improve access to dental care. Delivering 6 million more courses of treatment, expanding dentistry training places by  40% and making it easier for patients to find a dentist to deliver the care they need are just some of the ways in which we are going to achieve that. Of course, we must make sure that dentists are properly rewarded for all the work they do. Through our soon-to-be-published dentistry recovery plan, we will go further, to make NHS dentistry accessible and available for everyone who needs it, no matter where they call home in this great country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. As colleagues will see, this is a very well-subscribed debate, so I am going to impose an immediate time limit of six minutes, which I hope will allow everybody to have roughly the same amount of time. I have been able to tell the first two speakers that I am doing that.

Gill Furniss: The crisis in NHS dentistry is plain to see and it is affecting so many of my constituents. I am therefore grateful for this opportunity to shed light on this emergency and to support Labour's plan to rebuild our broken dentistry. People are finding it impossible to find an NHS dentist for themselves and their children, which is leading to serious consequences for public health. It is also exacerbating health inequalities, and creating a divide between those who can afford private dentistry and those who cannot. The proportion of children with dental decay in the most deprived areas is more than two and a half times greater than it is in the least deprived areas, and the gap is widening. That has led to a public health crisis: 169 children each day are undergoing tooth extraction; rotting teeth is, shockingly, the No. 1 cause of hospital admissions among six to 10-year-olds; and one in 10 people have even attempted their own do-it-yourself dentistry, which just does damage and puts even more pressure on the NHS. That reads like a Charles Dickens novel, but it is the harsh reality of 14 years of Conservative government. Nowhere is that more apparent than in my constituency, where not one of the seven dental surgeries that recently provided an update was accepting new adult patients and only one was accepting new child patients.
Although those figures are appalling, they are not surprising. I am regularly contacted by constituents who cannot find an NHS dentist and cannot afford to go private. They ask me, “What am I supposed to do?”. Without radical reform, there is no answer I can give them. We often talk about crumbling dental services, but in my constituency they have already crumbled; the services simply are not there for the people who need them most. One constituent has contacted more than 25 dentists in Sheffield, with each telling her the same thing: they are not accepting new NHS patients at this time. The best she has been offered is to be put on a waiting list, which could last years. She cannot afford to go private, so she and her young child are stuck without any access to a dentist. We have also seen the provision of community dental services grind to a halt. Those services are a vital safety net, providing specialised treatment when other dentists cannot accommodate the needs of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. That safety net is no longer there for all too many people. Research shows that, nationally, more than 12,000 children were on a waiting list for  community dental services at the start of 2023, and they could face waits of up to 80 weeks for tooth extractions. Healthwatch has heard from many people and their carers who cannot access community dentistry, leaving them without treatment.
The basic provision of NHS dentistry has been worn away on this Government’s watch. The warning signs of this crisis have been stark for years, but Ministers have continued to bury their heads in the sand. Funding has been cut in real terms, meaning that dentists are leaving the NHS in droves and areas such as mine have become dental deserts. It is clear that this Government are not willing to provide the radical changes needed to bring NHS dentistry back from the brink. In April last year, Ministers promised a new dental recovery plan; but we are still waiting for it to see the light of day. I urge the Minister to tell us when that will happen and not just say “soon”. Labour has formulated a fully costed plan that will get NHS dentistry back up and running. The best treatment is prevention, which is why Labour will introduce a targeted, supervised toothbrushing scheme for three to five-year-olds, encouraging lifelong good dental hygiene. Labour will also provide an extra 700,000 urgent appointments per year to help the most vulnerable access the services they need and introduce an incentive scheme to bring more dentists to dental deserts. I am proud to say that all of that will be paid for by abolishing the non-dom tax status. Those tangible steps will bring NHS dentistry back to constituencies such as mine, where services have disappeared. Where this Government have failed, Labour will step in and help all our constituents to access the NHS dentistry they need. I will be proud to support Labour’s plan in today's vote, and I urge all colleagues, including Conservative Members, to vote with us.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care.

Steve Brine: Last July, the Health and Social Care Committee, which I chair, published an important report on NHS dentistry, and I urge colleagues to read it if they have not already done so—it has been mentioned a few times. That inquiry was more necessary than ever, and I would argue that the issues our constituents face in accessing an NHS dentist now are a greater challenge for my Front-Bench colleagues than the much higher-profile health promise to “cut the waiting list” that features in the Prime Minister’s five pledges. I say that because every Member faces this challenge. The Secretary of State’s amendment rightly references the pandemic and the massive impact it has had on dentistry; to ignore that is to ignore basic facts. Our Committee concluded that NHS dentistry is facing a crisis of access—no understatement—resulting in a decline in oral health.
Our report was described by the British Dental Association as
“an instruction manual to save NHS dentistry.”
Based on the evidence—I stress the word evidence—received by the cross-party Committee, it sets out what the Government should do to address the crisis. I thank the Secretary of State for coming before the Committee just  before Christmas and for ensuring that we received a formal response to our report, albeit a few weeks later than I would have liked.
The motion proposed by the Labour party today contains some reasonable parts: it is obvious that some people are resorting to DIY dentistry and it is a fact that some people are attending A&E because of dental challenges. The Opposition talk about the provision of 700,000 urgent appointments a year, but I cannot support the motion because I hear no detail or explanation about how that will be done, who the dentists are who will fulfil all those appointments or where they will happen. The Opposition talk about recruiting new dentists to the areas that are most in need but, as the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, we are increasing dentistry training places by 40% as part of the NHS long-term workforce plan, which is the biggest expansion of places on record. That is important and should be recognised, as it was from the Government Dispatch Box.
When giving evidence to the Select Committee’s inquiry, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), described the Government’s ambition for NHS dentistry, saying:
“We do want everyone who needs one to be able to access an NHS dentist—absolutely”
The Committee welcomed that ambition but, if I am honest, we were surprised by it. In their most optimistic reading of the reality on the ground, what leads the new ministerial team to believe that that is deliverable? When she sums up, will the Minister repeat that ambition, as her predecessor did?
Do not get me wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker: I absolutely believe that everyone should be able to access an NHS dentist when they need one, wherever they live, but given the reality of where we are now, I question whether that is possible. In our report, we asked the Government to set out how they intend to realise that ambition and the timeline for delivery as a matter of urgency. They accepted the recommendation, but the detail, as we have heard, is still lacking. Now is the time, please.
Let me touch on the dental contract. It is right to recognise that action has been taken. Some initial changes were made to the dental contract in July 2022, and we had assurances of fundamental reform from the then Minister, and again from his successor as Minister responsible for dentistry, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is on the Treasury Bench.
My Committee believes that a fundamentally reformed contract must be implemented at the earliest possible stage. It has to represent a full move away from the current system of units of dental activity—UDAs—in favour of a weighted capitation-based system that provides financial incentives for seeing new patients and those with greater dental need, and in turn prioritises prevention and person-centred care. Failure to do so risks more dentists stopping NHS work, or not starting it, and exacerbating the issues that my constituents are experiencing with accessing care.
As I have said in the House before, my dentist recently gave up NHS work, which was a big, emotional decision for her. Any reform to the contracts now is too late for her. The Opposition and the Government have to work  out how they are going to get people to come back to NHS dentistry, and reform the contract to stop more people accessing the exit door.
It is not just about contract reform: workplace reform is greatly important. We did not get significant acknowledgement of the lack of accurate data about the dental workforce in our report, so will Ministers revisit that? There were many other recommendations that I do not have time to go into today, but the report is available, as is the Government’s response.
The Secretary of State has made a good start and said she has begun to lay the foundations of change. I am encouraged by that but, to my Committee’s continued frustration, there is still no date for the publication of the dental recovery plan. If we do not solve this crisis, we will continue to hear about it in the House and from constituents. The crisis places additional pressures on already stretched services. Today is too late for dentists who are thinking of leaving and for patients who have run out of options. We need a short-term set of actions for constituents who are suffering pain today, and we need a fully reformed dental recovery plan hot on its heels. There cannot be any further delay.

Judith Cummins: The Nuffield Trust recently announced that without radical action universal NHS dentistry was “gone for good”. Some 90% of practices across the UK no longer accept new NHS patients. For 14 years this Conservative Government have brought about the decay of our vital NHS dental healthcare services, so now is the time for a clear strategy, a recommitment to the future of a universal NHS dental service, and a Government who are determined to provide the care that people across this country, and their children, deserve.
The crisis of NHS dentistry has been entirely predictable. In fact, I have been at the forefront of these predictions over many years. Just last year, in a debate that I led in this place, I described the path of NHS dentistry as a “slow-motion car crash”. In 2016, I warned of a mounting crisis and drew the Government’s attention to a report warning that half of dentists were thinking of leaving the NHS. In the following years, I again warned that the number of dentists intending to leave the NHS was rising even further and, in 2020, after years of repeated warnings, I once again informed the Government that of those remaining, some 58% of the UK’s dentists were planning to move away from NHS dentistry within five years.
Last year, the then Minister assured the House that he was planning to publish a plan to reform dentistry, but the limited reforms proposed in July did little but paper over the growing cracks. More than 1,000 dentists have left the NHS since the pandemic, and the number of treatments completed each year is now 6 million lower than it was before the pandemic. Even before the pandemic, access was poor, with only enough dentistry commissioned for around half the population in England. As it stands, the future is bleak. A BDA survey shows that 75% of dentists are thinking of reducing their NHS commitments this year.
In Bradford, a shocking 445 people had to be treated in hospital for dental-related issues between 2022 and 2023. This cannot be the future of NHS dentistry:  extractions and emergency care, but only for those who cannot afford private dental care. One dentist in my constituency said:
“I've been saying it for years: the NHS dental contract needs fundamental reform. Without immediate action, there will be no Universal NHS Dentistry.”
But NHS dentistry is not yet “gone for good”. That claim would leave swathes of people in this country destined for a future of rotting teeth and poor dental health. We cannot stand by and let the principle of NHS dentistry in this country be eroded. The decline is not irreversible or inevitable—it is a political choice.
I know that targeted investment is possible. In 2017, I worked on a project in Bradford with the then Health Minister, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who is now Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. The project invested £250,000 of unused contract clawback in my Bradford South constituency, and ensured that patients were able to access roughly 3,000 new NHS dental appointments in an area of proven high dental deprivation. Although that provided a short-term solution, it did not address the wider long-term issue of access to NHS dental care. We can still save NHS dentistry, but we need a Government who are committed to reform and to the NHS.
It right that the Labour party puts NHS dentistry front and centre alongside plans to build an NHS fit for the future. Labour has committed to provide an extra 700,000 urgent dental appointments and to real reform of the NHS dental contract. As the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has made clear on many occasions, healthcare must be as much about prevention as it is about cure.
In 2021-2022, tooth decay was, shamefully, the most common reason for hospital admission for children between six and 10 years old. This country once had a strong school dental service, and with such shocking rates of child tooth decay, it is time to look again at that policy, and at the role of dental therapists in the NHS. It is the right thing to do to catch up on a generation of lost dental health. NHS dentistry is not “gone for good”, but it stands on the edge of a new era. There is one clear solution: the Government must recommit to a universal NHS dental service that will care for every person, from the cradle to the grave.

Derek Thomas: I listened carefully and with interest to what the shadow Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. I like the man, but he clearly sees this matter as a potential political football, which comes as no surprise to me. As for me, my interest is in the constituents I represent. They do not care so much about the bickering between us, but they do care about their oral health.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. As we have heard, every constituent will need access to dental activity during the course of their lives. I have taken a great interest in this matter and spoken about it to hundreds of constituents and several dentists. In fact, over the weekend I spoke to some dentists who do not support Labour’s plans and want to see the Government advance their reforms—I was glad to hear more about those reforms today. I have raised the  matter of NHS dentistry several times in the House with two separate Prime Ministers, including in January 2022, June 2022, April 2023 and September 2023, and also with several Ministers, including the one on the Front Bench, and the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State’s predecessor said it was a priority to increase the number of dentists in specific parts of the country, and mentioned the south-west in particular. We are seeing some early green shoots appear. None the less, people in the south-west and Cornwall are struggling to get access to a dentist. I still receive weekly emails from constituents who are not getting the treatment that they need, or who are spending their time and money travelling to NHS practices in Manchester or London, or even abroad, to pay for private care. I have witnessed dental practices giving up NHS contracts, or vastly reducing NHS treatment, forcing some people to fully fund their own care and others, who cannot afford that, to go without treatment. I have raised this issue with the Health Secretary in the Chamber quite recently.
When I spoke to people in dental practices, they said they were as frustrated as I am. They have a contract with the NHS to provide thousands of units of dental activity, but the funding allocation is clawed back by the NHS if they cannot deliver those units. They cannot deliver the units, as we have heard already, because the value is too low to attract the staff that they need. Last year, a practice that I was working with paid more than £132,000 in clawbacks to our integrated care board. That is enough funding to treat 1,600 patients.
Nationally, underspend in the NHS dental budget could reach £500 million. We know that the NHS dental contract needs reform: it does not work for dentists and it certainly does not work for our patients. None the less, I am pleased that integrated care boards are taking ownership of dentistry and driving the delivery of dental care in our regions. In Cornwall, the ICB has already gripped the issue, using what resources it has to increase capacity. I was disappointed by the shadow Secretary of State’s reference to the work going on in Cornwall. The ICB does not see the work that it is doing as restricting NHS dentistry just to children, the elderly and vulnerable people. That is absolutely not the case. What it is doing is looking at where the shortages are and seeking to address them with the resources it has. The truth is that one third of adults in Cornwall are still accessing NHS dentistry. We have seen new NHS dental provision in Helston and in St Ives—two of my major towns—and there is a real ambition among dentists to take on more once they are allowed to do so.
The workforce plan needs to set out not just the number of dentists, dental nurses and other dental professions, but where they are located. We have a brilliant dental suite in Truro, but graduates rarely stay in the south-west once they have been trained. We are seeing a slight improvement, with dental practices offering foundation placements for graduates in Cornwall, including in St Ives, where the potential is greater.
I recognise that the Minister is just as keen as I am to empower the entire dental team to work to their full potential for NHS patients, but there remain barriers to fully implementing direct access in NHS-funded dental care. As I understand it, medicines can be administered by dental care professionals when they provide care to  patients who pay privately, but this does not apply to NHS dental patients. On a recent visit to a practice in St Ives, the owner explained to me the impact of this disparity.
We have therapists in most locations in the south-west ready to increase NHS access, especially for young children, as most of the work for that patient cohort is within their scope of practice. It is disappointing that we cannot use those therapists fully. Dentists are reluctant to sign off prescriptions because of time issues and because of not understanding the process. Our therapists are doing only hygiene work, and some of them are leaving because of the lack of work.
My understanding is that a statutory instrument is required, which is in the gift of the Minister. This simple piece of legislation would provide the opportunity for NHS dental practices to use the full skillset and competencies of their dental staff to increase the delivery of desperately needed dental care. Will the Minister indicate today whether she is able to bring such an SI to the House and unleash an army of dental professionals to do what they believe they are trained to do?
Finally, in 2021-22, £4.5 million of unmet dental care was returned from Cornwall to the NHS. It is now lost in the NHS system. Will the Minister assure me that never again will that kind of money be grabbed or stolen from Cornwall’s dental patients, returned to the NHS and not used to deliver the dental care that they need?

Navendu Mishra: I receive a large amount of correspondence on dentistry. Since my election just over four years ago, I have had several people come to see me, I have visited practices in Stockport, and I have often received communications from people on the issue. I thank the British Dental Association for all the work that it has done on NHS dentistry over the years, and the Nuffield Trust for providing excellent briefings for this debate, and for its commitment to highlight the issues with NHS dentistry across England.
It is shocking that 12 million people were unable to access NHS dental care last year. That is more than one in four adults in England. The crisis in NHS dentistry is having a disproportionate impact on low-income people and vulnerable groups. This is a class issue. If a person is on a low income, they are much less likely to have access to NHS dentistry than if they lived in a more affluent area.
As has been mentioned, oral cancer is one of the fastest-rising cancers. The reality is that people from deprived communities are significantly more likely to develop it and die from it. It is shameful and unacceptable that the Government are not doing enough to tackle this issue. Dentists are often the first health professional to spot symptoms of oral cancer. This dentistry crisis means that fewer cases of oral cancer will be detected early, adding even more pressure on to the NHS, and, more importantly, detrimentally impacting people’s health.
As I said, this is a significant issue in my constituency. A few months ago, I wrote to every single dental practice in my constituency and included a small survey that they could fill out. The responses that I received from dentists and dental workers did not make for positive reading. I will quote from one of the contributions that I received. The dentist in question wrote:
“The whole service has been underfunded for years. I receive a very low UDA rate compared to other practices in the area. In 2006, I was paid £22 UDA and now it is £27. Patients need to know that we are not just greedy dentists. There is a shortage of dental nurses so they are demanding more money. Where am I supposed to find that extra funding?”
That is just one of the contributions that I received back following my survey. It is a significant issue. People on lower incomes and people with complex health issues often tend to miss out on NHS dentistry. I am glad that the shadow Health and Social Care team has secured this debate today and that the shadow Secretary of State highlighted just some of the key things that Labour will deliver in government, including significantly more appointments, significantly more dentists in the NHS service, and supervised toothbrushing in primary schools.
In April last year, the Government pledged to provide a recovery plan for NHS dentistry. The plan has yet to be published. May I ask the Minister, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, when it will be published? Why are the Government being so shifty about this? Why will they not address this issue and tell us whether and when it will be published? It seems that, in Stockport and across England, the Government are failing patients badly not just when it comes to dentistry, but with record waiting lists for the NHS. Sadly, the reality is that people’s lives in Stockport and England are being held back by this Government.

Richard Foord: The hon. Member mentions the so-called NHS dentistry recovery plan cited by the Government. I am playing a game of NHS dentistry bingo, provided to me by the BDA. One of the 16 things that we were to listen out for today was:
“Our Recovery Plan will be published shortly”.
I have checked that off several times this afternoon. Does he agree that it is dishonest for the Government to claim that NHS dentistry is some sort of universal service?

Navendu Mishra: I agree with the hon. Member and thank him for his contribution. I think the BDA tagged me on Twitter in its dentistry bingo. I have not managed to play yet but will definitely be checking it out. He makes the point that the Government are being dishonest. The Government are being more than dishonest; they will not tell us if and when the plan will be published. They clearly do not have a plan to address the backlog in NHS waiting lists or the crisis in NHS dentistry in England. The next Labour Government will tackle the issues of NHS dentistry and the millions of people rotting on the NHS waiting list. They will also improve people’s quality of life in Stockport and across Britain.

Anthony Mangnall: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to raise the issues that so many people face across the south-west and south Devon, many of whom are in immense pain. I will start by responding to some of the remarks made earlier in the debate. It is acceptable to make the point that the NHS contract from 2006 does not work and has not worked. It is acceptable to say that we tried to make it work, and we hit an enormous roadblock in the form of the pandemic, which has shown the system to be wanting. None of those are controversial statements to make.
Labour should not be outraged when we ask for their plans. Time and again, Labour Members go in front of the cameras and say they have a plan for this and that and everything we might possibly imagine, so we therefore should be able to ask them, given that this is their debate. They can laugh, as they are doing now, or smile about this, but it is a serious and legitimate question. If they are a Government in waiting, they should come up with proposals for a short-term solution to this issue.
The shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), decided to tell me that he and the Labour party have been talking about this issue since 2010. Indeed, he said it was in their manifestos in 2010 and 2015. I cannot find any record of it being in their manifestos. In fact, it is hard to actually see when the shadow Health Secretary even cared about this issue before his appointment, but I will leave that to others to make clear in the course of the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made perfectly clear the challenges we face. She made the point clearly that there have been some improvements, but no Conservative Member is complacent. We are all aware of this, because we speak to our constituents and look at our email inboxes. We are aware of the size of the trouble and problems being faced. It should be welcome that we are now pushing taxpayer-funded dentists who have been in training to work within the NHS at the end of their training. It should be welcome that there are 40% more dental training places and that we are looking at ways in which we can bring dentists from abroad, as well as creating training places right across the country. I welcome the report and comments by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine).
All of that boils down to what we think the priorities of NHS dentistry should be. Simply put, having spoken to many dentists in my constituency, the priorities boil down to three areas: prevention, education and pain relief. [Interruption.] I do not think many people are looking to disagree on that point, but if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) wants to disagree with me, she can. The point is that the pandemic has blown two of those priorities off course. The focus for the short term must be how we address pain relief. That is the issue we face today, and children and those of an older age are suffering from it across the country.
What are the short-term actions that we can take today? They have been mentioned by many Conservative Members. We can look at dental access centres and mobile units that can move across the country. We might think those are fantasy, but they are already in practice in some places in the country. Indeed, they have been raised by a number of dentists in my area of south Devon, who suggest that they are not just feasible but incredibly possible with the underspend that has not been utilised. We must unlock the money that has not been spent through NHS contracts. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that some £50 million of underspend on NHS dentist contracts could be made available to help those on waiting lists.
As a number of Labour Members have said, we must allow dental therapists to play a larger role in helping treat people within the process and address their needs.  As I have said, we must focus on pain relief as the priority. Reform of UDAs has to happen as quickly as possible. The time and geographical disparity means the system has been found wanting, and it is clear right across the country—whether in urban, rural or coastal community settings—that there are huge disparities in remuneration for a UDA. Rather than standing here and speaking about parliamentary candidates, it is probably more appropriate to think about the solutions that we can find to help those who are suffering so much.
I will give examples of what is going on in Devon. We have 17,000 more UDAs, which is welcome. We have a dental care stabilisation system. We have 406 extra appointments per week, which can be found through contacting 111. We have one of the finest dental training schools in the form of the Peninsula Dental School, located just outside Plymouth. It is working to help address the need and to support the Government in helping areas across the country. It is looking to help ensure that its trainees remain within the area after their training, to make the NHS as flexible as possible to the needs of those who need to use it.
We must have reform. Many of us on the Conservative Back Benches agree that we must have the reforms that have been promised before, because they are the hook that we can hang our hat on, and they will be the solution. If the Minister could look at the short-term solutions I have proposed and give a response, that would be welcome not just in my part of the country, but all across the country.

Mike Amesbury: Surely in this day and age everybody should have the right to receive dental treatment when they need it. That was the fundamental principle of the national health service that we, the Labour party, founded all those glorious years ago. Unfortunately, as Labour Members know—it has been well documented throughout the debate so far—the principle behind national health service dentistry has been severely undermined and eroded in each one of the 14 years of this Tory Government. Today, quite astoundingly, I think the Secretary of State mentioned that at some stage, shortly, they will publish a long-term plan. Fourteen years on, they will publish some kind of long-term plan shortly, with no date. That is the state of chaos that this country is governed by at the moment. Meanwhile, 12 million people cannot get the dental treatment they need and deserve.
We all know a bit too well that 90% of dental practices in England are closed to NHS routine patients. That is essentially creating dental deserts all across the country, including, of course, in my constituency. It is something I see all too often in the Halton and the Cheshire West and Chester parts of my constituency. I see only too clearly how bleak and extreme the dentistry desert landscape has become.
I was recently contacted by my constituent Allan from Northwich, who had been registered with the local dentist for over 10 years. After a visit to a private hygienist, he was advised to book a dental check-up. When he tried to do so, he was told that he had been   de-registered as an NHS patient because he had not had a check-up in over two years. That happened during the pandemic, and he was one of many people who could not have a check-up in that period. Again, that has been documented in the debate. He was told that the dentist was not taking any new NHS patients due to a lack of capacity, yet he could be offered a fully private paid check-up in just a few weeks’ time. Of course, if people do not have the money in their pocket and do not have the ability to pay, that is not possible, and that is the case for far too many of our constituents up and down the country. Why should Allan, and millions like him, not be able to get access to the NHS dental services they need if they cannot afford private care—unlike some in this country, and even some Members on the rather sparse Government Benches that I see at the moment?
Across Britain, too many people face the stark choice of having to pay for expensive payment plans in the private sector or going without dental treatment. The cases of people resorting to DIY treatment have been well documented, as has the additional strain on our NHS hospital services when people go for emergency dental treatment. The problem extends to all parts of my community. In a recent meeting with the joint headteachers of Leftwich Community Primary School, they raised the desperate attempts they have made to try to get NHS dental appointments for some of their primary schoolchildren. Of course that is not the teachers’ bread-and-butter issue, but they are going the extra mile to help some of the children most in need in my constituency—and again to no avail.
What have the Government done to ensure increased access to dentists across England, including in my patch in Cheshire and Merseyside? The short answer is not a lot, and the situation is getting worse. I and other Members of Parliament who represent Cheshire and Merseyside constituencies recently met the chief executive and chair of the integrated care board, who told us that they have been informed by the Department of Health and Social Care that the underspend that they had inherited to spend on local dentistry, which amounted to some £10 million, must now be de-ringfenced and used for what they classed “inflationary cost pressures”, not for NHS dentistry. That has come from the Department itself. I would be interested to hear a response from the Minister on that, because it is incredible that NHS England previously said that that money was ringfenced, yet now we have evidence from the integrated care board of direction from the Department of Health and Social Care saying, “No, you will spend it on other things.”
With my neighbouring MPs across Cheshire and Merseyside, we made strong representations to the chair and chief executive of the integrated care board, but, as outlined by my good colleague the shadow Secretary of State, this is happening up and down the country. It is happening everywhere, almost by design: running down NHS dentistry, making it a thing of the past so that the default position is private dentistry.

Fiona Bruce: One of the most important steps the Government can take to improve access to NHS dental care is to boost our workforce and train more dentists and dental professionals, in line with the Government’s NHS long-term workforce plan,  which has a clear reference to dental training as a priority. I will focus in particular on the importance of training dental professionals, who support dentists in many important ways. The workforce plan recognises that we must ensure that the skills of our whole dental workforce are utilised, by supporting dental hygienists, dental therapists, dental nurses and others to provide additional care, freeing up more time for dentists and increasing overall dental care and provision. I will focus on the importance of that and what the Government are doing to prioritise it.
I digress briefly by saying that in my own professional background as a solicitor—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I know how vital it is that our support staff are there to help the qualified solicitors do our job. We could not work without them and without their expertise, often honed over many years and in particular specialised areas. The same applies to the dental profession.
I applaud and commend all those who work in the profession and support dentists. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that we must empower them to take on even more responsibility—not because it is a burden, but because I can see how those working in professional environments find their work increasingly fulfilling the more responsibility they are trained to take on. I support her statement that we should do that and ensure that those staff are qualified, competent and indemnified.
Turning to the NHS long-term workforce plan in particular, while it is commendable that dentistry training places have a target and the Government are working to expand places by 24% by 2028-29, I particularly applaud the focus on increasing training places for dental therapy and hygiene professionals by 28% in the same period, adding hundreds more professionals to our dental workforce. That work is not just looking to the future, but is happening now: in the past year, NHS England has made an investment in postgraduate dental specialty training, focused on areas currently underserviced by existing provision, which will improve access to specialist dental services.
As the plan states:
“We recognise the important contribution to dental care that the wider dental workforce makes, including dental nurses. While training of dental nurses is largely the responsibility of dental practices, we will work with dental practices and other stakeholders to support the wider dental workforce to meet NHS service delivery plans for dentistry.”
It is heartening to note that
“the Plan aims to deliver 15% of dental activity through dental therapists and dental hygienists, as opposed to the current estimate of 5%.”
That has to be a positive target to work to. In addition, the plan focuses on the
“national Return to Therapy programme…being developed to enable dental therapists working as hygienists to fulfil their full scope of practice”,
and states that
“NHS England is reforming contractual arrangements to encourage more dentists back into NHS practice and to make it easier for therapists and hygienists to provide NHS care”.
I will move on to the consultation that the Government held on making better use of the whole dental workforce, supporting dental hygienists and therapists to provide additional care to patients. I know the Secretary of State has said that the Government will shortly set out the  outcome of the consultation. I urge them to do so and to take particular note of any contributions to that consultation from dental hygienists, therapists or nurses. They have so much to offer through their work at the coalface on the challenges that we all recognise in ensuring that everyone can see a dentist quickly and receive the treatment they need to keep themselves healthy and well. Dental care is an essential part of the NHS and should continue to be so for the future.

Paulette Hamilton: I sit on the Health and Social Care Committee and was shocked at what I heard during the inquiry, but it lined up with what residents in my constituency are facing. There are more than 100,000 people living in my constituency and only seven dental surgeries, at least three of which are not accepting any new adult patients. That issue is not unique to Erdington. Across the west midlands, 73% of dentists are not accepting any new adult patients.
A constituent contacted me after her dentist’s practice closed down, as she had spent four hours trawling through websites and ringing practices, and she was not getting anywhere. She cannot afford private dental care, and her son has a serious health condition that means he requires regular dental check-ups. She explained that to every practice she could, but without success. Another constituent’s daughter was referred for braces in 2021. Two years later, after being referred to three separate orthodontists, she was told that there is a waiting list of more than 1,500 children, and it continues to rise. The response that I received from NHS England advised my constituents to call 111 for any urgent care services, and said that it is
“working to address the challenges facing the service right now.”
The list of challenges is long. The record of the Conservative Government means that NHS dentistry has completely collapsed. Over the past two years, 6 million adults tried and failed to get an appointment, and 4.4 million did not even try because they knew that there was no hope. Rotting teeth is the No. 1 reason that children aged six to 10 are admitted to hospital. Despite that, seven in 10 UK dentists are not accepting any new child patients. Shamefully, one in 10 people in the UK have attempted their own dental work out of pure desperation. That is how my constituents are experiencing the shocking record of the Conservative Government: getting them to properly fund our NHS is quite literally like pulling teeth.
In April last year, Ministers promised a dental recovery plan. In December, the Secretary of State promised in the Government’s response to the Health and Social Care Committee’s report—I was there—that the plan would be “published shortly,” so where is it?
Unlike the Government, Labour does have a plan that would help people in our communities to access the NHS dentistry that they so desperately need. Labour would fund NHS practices to provide 700,000 more urgent appointments. Our plan would create incentives for new dentists to work in the dental deserts that the Tories have created. And, rather than offering sticking-plaster solutions, we would reform the dental contract to rebuild the service in the long term.
It is becoming more and more obvious, everywhere we look in Britain, that nothing works, and our NHS dentistry is no exception. My constituents, and people across the UK, cannot go on without basic healthcare while we watch our NHS crumble around us. Only the Labour party has a plan for NHS dentistry. Like a decaying tooth, it is time for this Government’s extraction.

Peter Gibson: I wish to put on the record at the outset my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) for his work on dentistry. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), for her early engagement with colleagues on this topic just days into her new role.
My constituency office has received enquiries from almost 200 residents who have been unable to access NHS dentistry services, despite the fact that there are many dentists in our town. The current NHS contract for dentistry stems from Labour’s reforms of 2006, and has increasingly shown itself to be lacking. The regime of payments based on units of dental activity has been unfair to dentists from the start, and, due to insufficient commissioning in areas of greatest need, it has been unfair to patients too.
Last year, a practice based at Firthmoor community centre in Darlington handed back its NHS contract as it was unable to be economically viable while being paid a mere £23.50 for a UDA. After struggling to recruit a new dentist, the owner of the practice, who also operates in other parts of the north-east and is paid almost £40 for a UDA in leafy parts of Newcastle, took the very sad but entirely understandable decision to close their Darlington branch. No business can recruit and employ staff when the money coming in does not cover the operating costs, never mind make a profit. NHS England, which did the commissioning prior to April 2023, offered to increase the UDA rate to nearly £30, but frankly, that was too little, too late.
When the North East and North Cumbria integrated care board took over responsibility for dentistry in April last year, I was filled with fresh hope that a resolution for the situation in Darlington would be found. I was assured that emergency provision would be expanded and additional commissioning would be provided at a higher UDA to further expand provision in Darlington. Imagine my dismay and disappointment when, in late November, I learned that little, if anything, had been done—literally nothing. There then followed numerous meetings, conversations and communications as I became increasingly angry that I had effectively been misled and my constituents were still being under-provided for. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for kindly highlighting my work on this topic as a constituency MP, in contrast to his time prior to his current role, when he mentioned dentistry not once.
Our ICBs do not even have to have a dentist on their boards. It has become clear to me that only by our lobbying, pushing and raising this in the media will our ICBs actually turn their attention away from their own internal bureaucracy and focus on the job of providing  the services that they have an obligation to commission. I welcome that the Government will bring forward a dental recovery plan, which really cannot come soon enough. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to give our ICBs a boot up the backside and get them to pull their finger out. When things are as bad as they are, their underspend on dentistry is utterly shocking.
While I am on my feet, I have a few suggestions for the Minister. I have shared them directly with her before, but it would be good to get them on the record. We need more dental training. Will she consider the addition of a dental school to Teesside University, alongside its excellent dental technician training facilities? I welcome that we will oblige our new dentists, whose training comes at massive public cost, to spend a period of time providing public services before they go fully private. Dentists should be required to publish their fees and charges for NHS, private and insurance-backed work, so that patients can make clear and informed choices. We also need to see greater provision of mobile dentists visiting schools, particularly in areas of higher deprivation.
We need to see much more progress on this issue. We need to go further and faster, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister is the right person to do just that.

Tim Farron: I need hardly say that dentistry is not the only part of the national health service that the Conservative Government have allowed to fall into crisis while shamelessly seeking to shift the blame on to others. However, it is welcome that we have the chance to focus today on dentistry and on the millions of people in this country, including many thousands in Westmorland, who are being so badly let down.
For communities in Westmorland and Lonsdale, the heart of this crisis is a basic difficulty in securing an NHS appointment. Many people in our area know that they cannot afford to have their teeth or their children’s teeth checked. They feel a crushing financial burden, and a burden of guilt, because they cannot access an NHS dentist for themselves or their family, and they know that they cannot afford to go private.
This crisis has very real, very personal, very expensive and very painful consequences for people in our communities in Cumbria and nationwide. Healthwatch found that one in 10 people in England had resorted to paying for private dental care because they could not find an NHS dentist. However, most people I speak to cannot afford to go private, so what do those families do? Well, YouGov found that one in 10 adults had tried some form of DIY dentistry, the difficulty of accessing a dentist forcing them to resort to medieval practices. This country—proud of our prosperity and proud of our NHS—is in the shameful situation of its people’s teeth and, most shamefully of all, its children’s teeth, getting worse.
In 2022, the BDA found that one in four five-year-olds in my community in Cumbria had tooth decay, and that tooth decay was the No. 1 reason for hospital admissions among young people. Regular dental appointments are vital for preventing tooth decay, and even more so for children, whose teeth tend to decay more quickly. However, fewer and fewer children are able to access those  appointments because of the negligence of this Government. In Cumbria, the proportion of children seen by a dentist in the NHS each year went from 64% in 2018 to just 50% last year, a drop of 14% in five years. Half of our children in our communities—from Grasmere to Grange, Appleby to Ambleside, Kendal to Kirkby Stephen and Windermere to Warcop—do not have access to an NHS dentist. That is a disgrace.
I have heard at first hand from my constituents about the shocking scale of the difficulty of getting access to appointments for children. One attendance officer at one of our primary schools wrote to me earlier last year after she found that families in her school were going abroad for dental appointments. She said:
“Tim, I felt compelled to email you to tell you… We have a high number of children who are regularly missing out on education due to being unable to register with a local NHS dentist. A large number of our children have Polish, Romanian, Latvian and Ukrainian parents and therefore will find it easier to travel back to their parents’ original home country rather than wait for a local NHS dentist who is accepting patients.”
Wow! Let us be clear: she is saying that some children in Cumbria find it easier to get dental treatment travelling to a war zone than to access the NHS dental care that their parents have already paid for through their taxes.
For adults in Cumbria, the picture is also awful. The number of adults seen by a dentist in the past two years is also down by 14%, to only 36.5%. Almost two thirds of adults in our communities in Cumbria cannot access the NHS dentists that—as I said—they have already paid for through their taxes. This is not only a crisis, but a colossal act of fraud and an injustice. People who work hard, pay their way, and rightly expect the Government to be competent enough to provide the services they have paid for are being let down, taken for a ride, and forced into either intense and painful physical suffering or paying again to get the treatment they were entitled to receive from the state. This is more than just a health issue; it is a moral issue, a fairness issue and a justice issue. A quick search of the NHS website shows that the nearest dental practice to Kendal that is taking on NHS patients is in Accrington, an 80-mile round trip, and that the nearest NHS practice to Kirkby Stephen is in Newton Aycliffe in County Durham, a round trip of two hours.
Let us remember that, as others have said, we are also facing a cancer care crisis in the UK, and part of the problem is a failure to diagnose cancers early so that they can be treated and cured. Dentists play a crucial role in identifying oral cancers, but if two thirds of Cumbria’s adults are not seeing an NHS dentist, we can be certain that cancers will be missed. They will therefore be untreatable and people will die unnecessarily. Core to our identity as Liberal Democrats is our belief that everyone in the UK should be able to access a dental health check-up on the NHS, with an emphasis on preventative oral health. We would reform the dental contract to ensure that those things take place, and fund it properly.
I am so often told by our local NHS ICB that, when all is said and done, the Government give them the money for only about half the people in our area to have access to an NHS dentist. Outrageously, that means that the only time they will contract a new NHS provider is when a previous provider has shut its doors, such as when the Avondale practice in Grange went private, leaving 5,000 people in limbo. People with a family of  four faced a yearly fee of £1,000 just to stay on that practice’s books. I have proactively gone out to persuade private dentists to accept NHS work, and although I know it is only a sticking plaster, I reckon I could find more. However, the ICB will not take those dentists on because this Government will not let them. The dentistry crisis is an outrage—an injustice meted out to people and families across our area. It seems to us in Westmorland that the best way we will defeat that injustice is to defeat the Government who are responsible for it.

Selaine Saxby: I rise for the 15th time during my time in this place to raise my concerns about the state of dentistry in my constituency. On being elected, the first letter I wrote was about dentistry, and although I fully accept the Government’s position that things have got worse following the pandemic, they were pretty bad in North Devon before. When I moved to Devon six and a half years ago, it took me two years to find an NHS dentist, and then I had to travel 45 minutes to get there.
One of my concerns about the statistics used is that they compare dentists per 100,000 of population. As a very sparsely populated rural location, we might not look like as much of a dental desert as some other places, but at present the nearest dentist taking NHS patients is over 100 miles away. A constituent contacted me before Christmas to say
“with regards to the extremely limited dental care in North Devon. My partner, who suffers from mental health issues which limits him from performing daily tasks and travelling, was in need of dental treatment this weekend. However, after being on hold for almost an hour I was told that there were no appointments in the whole of North Devon and the nearest appointment was in Exeter. Travelling that distance is just not possible for someone who has mental health issues, and due to the nature of his illnesses, he cannot drive and I don’t either at present.”
Exeter, which is the nearest city to my constituency, is over 50 miles away for most North Devon residents. Even private practices in North Devon are unable to take on the volume of patients in some parts of my constituency. I have parents writing weekly to ask what to do when their appointments are cancelled because dentists are handing back their NHS contracts. And because residents in North Devon are unable to get check-ups, by the time they are seen they have extensive dental needs costing hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds. Calling us a dental desert is no help at all. Given the structure of dentistry, dentists are not going to want to deal with the oral backlog each unseen mouth potentially holds.
I welcome the new dentistry Minister to her role, and thank her for her immediate engagement on this issue. I very much hope that her experience will ensure that the Government’s plan to further recover and reform NHS dentistry is expedited because, frankly, the good people of North Devon have waited long enough to see a dentist.

Richard Foord: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I recognise what she is describing in North Devon. A 75-year-old and his wife who live in Tiverton told me that they were contacted by their dentist, who said that they were not seeing NHS patients any more. They called a further 20 dental practices and  were told by several receptionists that no NHS appointments were available in Devon at all. Does she recognise the experience of my constituents?

Selaine Saxby: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. While I recognise some of those concerns, I will come on to the response that the Minister has given to my petition in this place.
The waiting list for dentistry is reportedly over 100,000 in Devon, and there are reports of children having all their teeth extracted. While that is horrific, we need to encourage children and adults alike to practise good dental hygiene, as schools and nurseries have more than enough to do to educate their children without also brushing their pupils’ teeth every day. When I visit schools in my constituency, they raise concerns about why dental hygienists with plaque-disclosing tablets no longer visit schools at least to highlight where poor brushing at home might be an issue. When I visited the Marines based in my constituency, they raised the issue of dentistry. On every social media post I put out, whatever topic it is on, someone raises dentists. Can the Minister please confirm when we will see a catch-up plan, since the last one apparently got stuck at the Treasury? As I have said before, I understand that money does not grow on trees, but neither do teeth.
I have presented a petition in this place about dentistry in North Devon, and I thank the Minister for her response, which details some improvements such as the Access Dental helpline in Devon. However, we know that even the post-covid schemes to help dentistry catch up did not reach places that needed it most, with the majority of the funds not actually being spent on dentistry. I have listened to my ICB’s plans for catching up, but I am not sure that anything I have heard fully reflects the issues around rurality and dentistry. Delivering most healthcare solutions in a rural environment is different from delivering them in an urban one: in rural constituencies, the closure of one dentist can leave patients travelling an additional 50 miles. As I have explained, popping to Exeter for treatment is not an option for many, and far too many of our health treatments involve that 120-mile round trip. We need the dentists to come to us, not us to the dentists, please.
I warmly welcome the steps that this Government are taking to train more dentists, but as even the Prime Minister conceded when he spoke to local press on his recent trip to the North Devon District Hospital, those steps will not help in the short term. The Opposition clearly have no plan in this area, and they have very little grasp of what rural life is like, given that most Opposition Members represent urban seats. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State commit to fairness in rural and coastal areas, but I ask the Minister to see whether it is possible to get some dentists on to buses and into rural areas, and especially into our schools. Over 50% of children in North Devon have never seen a dentist. Dentists come to see our fishermen; why can we not similarly arrange for them to see our servicemen’s families, our schoolchildren, and those who simply cannot travel to an NHS dentist or afford to see one locally?
I do fear that the magnitude of the issue is not well understood by those living in London. People who call an NHS dentist in London will likely be seen almost  immediately, and probably quicker than someone back home would have their phone call answered. Ideally, we would have regular dentist check-ups prior to getting toothache, but as even the bard said,
“there was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently”.
My patience and that of my constituents is running thin with the ongoing delay in hearing that the dentist will “see you now”.

Emma Hardy: In a landscape where health conditions have become a barrier to opportunity, dental health has unfortunately joined this growing list. The state of NHS dentistry after 13 years of Conservative Government is nothing short of a national tragedy. However, I rise not just to address this dire state of affairs, but to give hope that there is a path towards real solutions and lasting change—a path that can only be available under a future Labour Government.
The national surveys by the NHS Business Services Authority and the British Dental Association evidence the stark reality of our dental health crisis. Children in parts of England endure waits of up to 18 months for dental procedures and our dental workforce has fallen to the lowest levels since 2013, with morale at an all-time low. In Hull and the east riding, the situation is even more alarming, with over half of adults in Hull not having attended a dentist’s for two or more years, which is double the number in 2015.
My Facebook post asking people to share their experiences got nearly 300 comments, mostly on the same issues: the limited access to dentistry for children and adults; long waiting periods for critical interventions, such as tooth extractions, leading to prolonged pain and suffering for those in need; the inadequate availability of emergency care that forced individuals, as has been heard in this debate, to resort to DIY dentistry and unnecessary visits to A&E; and the impact on children’s health, with alarming waiting times for crucial procedures under general anaesthetic.
Angie told tell me about problems with special educational needs dentists. She said that they
“have had to start outsourcing to other dentists in and around Hull who are willing to work with those with SEN. Still waiting on an appointment for my son to be seen by the dentist we chose over 6 months and he’s supposed to be seen every 6 months”.
Sarah told me:
“I needed a dentist during 2021 due to having chemotherapy…so I go to my local NHS dentist which I had been with for years!...they had struck us off with no notice…so I ended up ringing over 40 dentists with no response other than a waiting list. 2 years later after treatment I went private, in debt of over 2,000 pounds and having lost 1 tooth. I’m lucky to being back to OK health.”
Stephen told me:
“Yeah our dentist closed at East Hull...and it’s taken me 2 years to try and get my kids a dentist. I actually called 37 dental surgeries and even had to try York, Leeds, Scarborough, Lincoln. My Polish dentist could not resit the English dental exam after we came out of the EU in time due to Covid delays so she went back to Poland. Such a shame, she was an amazing dentist... She was fully qualified but there was an exam you had to resit…it was all delayed at the time so I think we lost quite a lot because of that.”
Despite getting moulded for a new veneer for a tooth, he had
“to superglue an Amazon £9 tooth on my front tooth for over a year”.
Locally, people are trying to make a difference, and I pay tribute to Chris Groombridge and the Teeth Team charity, which goes out talking to children—nursery age and primary age children—about oral health and hygiene. However, we need to train more dentists, and we need to do more to keep the dentists we already have. I really welcome the reform of the dental contract.
On dentist training, I presented a petition calling for a Hull York dental school based on the Hull York Medical School that the Labour Government set up in 2003. Unfortunately, the Government rejected that idea. However, there have been positive conversations with the integrated care board about a centre for dental development being set up in Hull, so some dentists could be trained in the city, albeit not in the dental school that we would like to see. If that does happen, and I do hope it does, we will still be waiting five years for dentists to be trained. The emergency is here and now.
That is why I so wholeheartedly support Labour’s plan to get 700,000 more urgent appointments annually, reforming the dental contract to keep the NHS dentists we have, introducing supervised toothbrushing as a strong preventative measure, and funding improvements. The plan will cost money of course, but it will be funded, as we have explained, by abolishing the non-dom tax status, because people in Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle need healthcare more than the ultra-wealthy need a tax break.
Under the Conservatives, NHS dentistry faces a slow demise, with dentists leaving vast areas as dental deserts. Unlike the Tories, the Labour party believes in accessible healthcare for all. We pledge immediate action for those in urgent need and long-term reforms to restore NHS dentistry for everyone. The motion I am voting for today is not merely a formality; it is a reflection of the urgency and gravity of the situation. This Government’s legacy is one of stagnant growth, soaring prices and a crumbling public service. It is a legacy of failure, and it is time for the positive change that only a future Labour Government can bring.

Mary Foy: It was music to my ears when my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) announced that a Labour Government will introduce 700,000 extra appointments each year, get more dentists into the communities such as mine that need them the most and ensure that everybody who needs an NHS dentist can get one, because I am fed up with the state of NHS dentistry. I am fed up that my constituents cannot get an appointment, fed up that people in Durham have resorted to DIY dentistry and fed up that Tory Governments have sat on their hands for over 13 years.
To be clear, NHS dentists are not to blame for the crisis. We know they are trying their best. It is Ministers on the Benches opposite who are to blame, and they cannot say they have not been told. I have raised this important issue for the last two years and other Members have done so for so much longer. Last May, I raised, as a point of order, that the Prime Minister may have made several inaccurate statements regarding the number of NHS dentists. For instance, in Prime Minister’s questions on 3 May, he stated that
“there are more than 500 more dentists working in the NHS this year than last year.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 111.]
However, a freedom of information request obtained by the British Dental Association threw the Prime Minister’s comments into doubt. According to the FOI response, the number of dentists is in fact down by 695 compared with the previous year, and there were fewer dentists undertaking NHS work than before the pandemic, bringing the workforce down to levels not seen since 2012-13. Unsurprisingly, the Government did not correct the record, and that says it all.
Everyone knows that NHS dentistry is in crisis—our constituents tell us regularly—but the Government continue with their “It’s all fine” attempt at message discipline. Why do they not just accept that vast areas of our country are now described as dental deserts and do something about it? I hoped that the Chancellor would have offered something—just anything—for NHS dentistry in the autumn statement, but dentistry was not mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech or the policy report. Not a penny was put forward, even though the Government announced a recovery plan in April last year. That recovery plan, as we have heard, still has not been published. Even worse, perhaps, was the sinister announcement, confirmed in the answer to a written question I tabled in November, that the Government would withdraw free dental care for the long-term sick.
Last year, I led an Adjournment debate on one such dental desert—my constituency, City of Durham—and I want to repeat what my constituents shared with me so that Ministers know what people are going through. One constituent told me that they had moved to Durham four and a half years ago, but could not find an NHS dentist. They were told that, after a kidney transplant, it was vital they had regular dental check-ups to monitor their health, but then they broke their tooth and could not afford to fix it. Another constituent told me she had to borrow money to afford a private appointment; after becoming pregnant, the exemption she got from dental charges was worthless because there were no appointments available. A young girl from my constituency tripped over and shattered her teeth, and her family could not find a dentist to help her. It was only after I reported the case on social media that a local dentist kindly offered their assistance. Another was unable to find an NHS dental appointment, so out of frustration decided to go private. Following that, they were diagnosed with oral cancer.
Why is this happening? A visit to a dental practice in my constituency provided some answers. The practice had just one dentist working two days a week seeing NHS patients and it had 10,000 patients on its books. In the north-east, almost 97% of surgeries are not accepting new adult patients. It does not take a genius to work out why my constituents cannot see a dentist.
The situation nationally is diabolical. Rotten teeth is the No. 1 reason why children aged between six and 10 are admitted to hospital, with an average of 169 children undergoing tooth extractions every working day. It is clear that a preventive approach to healthcare has eroded in Britain. Fundamentally, this is because of austerity. For over 13 years, the Government have hollowed out our welfare state.

Peter Gibson: The hon. Lady and I share the same integrated care board. If this is to do with austerity, why has she not engaged with our local ICB to ask it about the underspend and the provision in her constituency?

Mary Foy: I do speak to the ICB whenever I need to and it has told me, as I am about to say, that our welfare state, of which the NHS is a part, has been hollowed out. The system is wrong. Austerity has caused these problems: it is not the pandemic; it happened many years before then.
Supporters of austerity often say they do not want to burden future generations with debt, but austerity and preventive healthcare are incompatible; we cannot have both. The healthcare problems this Government have caused our constituents—issues that could have been prevented with funding and investment—will now be more expensive to resolve down the line. Conservative Members have saddled future generations with poorer health, poorer opportunities and ultimately a poorer country, and it is time for them to go.

Grahame Morris: It is an honour to follow my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I also raise an issue related to the integrated care board, which may be of interest.
I am sure you are far too young, Madam Deputy Speaker, to remember the school dentistry service but some of us of more senior years will recall the annual visits from the school dentist. Each year, the dentist and dental nurse would attend school assembly, class after class would line up, and every child would have their teeth inspected. At home time, anyone requiring further treatment would receive the dreaded letter asking parents to make a follow-up appointment. This was a simple, efficient, and productive process. The system allowed thousands of children to receive annual dental check-ups. The day was also an opportunity for children to be educated on the importance of dental hygiene—the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) mentioned the special tablets that highlighted plaque on teeth—and how to avoid the dreaded follow-up letter the following year.
I recently asked the integrated care board about reintroducing this scheme, but despite the NHS North East and North Cumbria integrated care board taking over responsibility for commissioning dental services, it passed the buck on this question to the local authority, stating in its reply:
“Commissioning responsibility for dental public health falls under the remit of Public Health, which is hosted by the Local Authority. As such, the ICB is unable to comment on the school dental screening programme and this would need to be raised directly with Durham County Council.”
This silo mentality is a disgrace. I will mention some statistics on opportunity cost in a moment. Although annual school screening would not necessarily be popular with the children, it would ensure they are all seen by a dentist, and it would free up space in dental practices.
Currently, our children are paying the price. Data from NHS Digital shows that 44% of children have not received an annual check-up with an NHS dentist. I looked on the NHS “Find a dentist” website today  and there is not a single dentist accepting children aged 17 or under in my Easington constituency. Ministers should be ashamed that after they have been in power for 14 years, NHS dentistry is catastrophically failing our children.
I say to my constituents watching this debate that there are dentists accepting children in neighbouring constituencies—in Wheatley Hill, Easington Lane and Houghton-le-Spring. However, those dependent on public transport will find accessing these services almost impossible due to the appalling state and unreliability of our bus services. That is another story and another catastrophic failure of Tory neglect and mismanagement.
The situation for adult patients in Easington is also dire. There are no dental practices accepting adult patients within a 10-mile radius of my constituency. Within a 15-mile radius, there are only three. Again, that is completely inaccessible for those who are dependent on our unreliable and infrequent local bus services.
The Prime Minister says he is proud of his record on dentistry and has boasted that there are now more NHS dentists across the UK, but he must inhabit a parallel universe. In the real world, data shows that there were 24,151 dentists performing NHS work in 2022-23—more than 500 down on pre-pandemic levels. Moreover, as colleagues have pointed out, the headcount does not show the level of NHS treatment, because a dentist working in the private sector and doing a single NHS check-up in a year counts just the same as a full-time NHS dentist.
There are some scary statistics. One in 10 people have attempted their own dental work, with Healthwatch, the patients’ voice, reporting patients pulling their own teeth out with pliers. That might seem ridiculous but my mother is 87 and very frail, and she did this out of desperation. It is appalling. Here is another terrible statistic—every day is a school day, Minister: tooth decay is the most common reason for hospital admission for children aged between six and 10. Oral cancer is one of the fastest rising types of cancer and kills more people than car accidents in the United Kingdom. Limited access to dental services means that fewer oral cancer cases will be detected early, which will lower the survival rate and further widen health inequalities.
It is time for the Government to get control of this problem and to deliver for the British public, who are being let down time and again by the dysfunction at the heart of the Conservative party.

Janet Daby: It is clear that under this Government our NHS dentistry is in crisis. Across Lewisham East a number of dental surgeries are no longer accepting new adult patients. Recent Healthwatch polling shows that one in 10 people in England are paying for private dental treatment because they cannot find an NHS dentist, yet many others cannot afford to do this and instead are suffering. The Government promised to publish their dental recovery plan by the summer of 2023; it is now 2024 and the Government still do not have a plan.
I will focus my remarks on a specific issue facing dental patients, as well as practitioners, that is making this crisis even worse. A constituent of mine contacted me about her father who was driven to suicide after  more than a decade of seeking compensation for dental work that left him in severe agony. Despite being awarded a record compensation sum, he never received a penny. The dentist who carried out the surgery was registered with the General Dental Council, which requires all dentists, both NHS and private, to have professional indemnity to be a member. However, it turned out that the dentist did not have full cover. Instead, she was covered only via her membership of the Dental Defence Union. Such organisations are not insurance companies but offer professional indemnity on a discretionary basis against the risk of dental neglect claims and professional conduct proceedings. That means that successful compensation claims by patients are not guaranteed to be paid out. The General Dental Council currently accepts that as appropriate, but in my view it is not, and neither is it in my constituent’s view, especially when it led to such a horrific experience for her late father.
The Paterson inquiry recommended that the Government should, as a matter of urgency, reform the current regulation of indemnity products for healthcare professionals. In 2018, the Government launched a consultation on indemnity cover for healthcare professionals including dentists, but little progress has come from it, despite the majority of stakeholders arguing against discretionary indemnity. I have written to the Secretary of State highlighting calls for the Government to outlaw discretionary indemnity options for what is considered appropriate cover for practising dentists, but I am yet to see a response. Therefore, I would welcome it if the Minister met me and my constituent to discuss this matter and the response to the consultation.
I am sure we all know that the Horizon scandal was a terrifying injustice, but in its own way the situation I am speaking about is also a scandal. Through no fault of their own, people are being denied huge amounts of compensation that they are legally entitled to. There is nothing in place to stop what is happening to my constituent’s father happening to many more people— I hope that it does not, but that is the reality. The Government have a duty to address safeguarding for patients and dentists. To exacerbate the problem, most patients and professionals do not know that their discretionary indemnity arrangement could still leave them out of pocket. When will the Government bring about change, or are they just incapable?

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: In my constituency, 11 dentists have updated their data. Seven are not accepting adults and nine are not accepting anyone, but the reality is that if I phoned around, I would find that none of them on that list are accepting people.
The situation is so bad in Sussex that the ICB has taken matters into its own hands, ignoring the NHS portal, which it says does not work, and producing a list every month of dentists that will do drop-ins. For the whole of Sussex, we have two in Hastings—hopefully soon to be Labour, with our fantastic candidate Helena there—two in Hove and one in Brighton Pavilion. There are none in Worthing—Worthing West and East Worthing and Shoreham are hopefully soon to get Labour MPs —or in Crawley, Bexhill and Battle, Lewes, Eastbourne, Mid Sussex or Chichester, all of which are marginal  constituencies in the next election. I would have thought the Government would be more on it to ensure that constituencies that they are about to lose have dentists that patients can see, but they are not.
The ICB says that it cannot find dentists to volunteer—that is what they do. All the ICB can do is beg and plead with dentists to voluntarily take extra patients, because the contracts do not work. Also, many dentists say that they cannot update the online system because other dentists do not update it, so if they do, they are flooded and all their places get taken. So dentists do not update the system properly. When asked why they do not, they also say that the system does not provide enough granularity. They can say whether they accept children and adults—yes or no—but they cannot say whether they take local people or prioritise other requirements.
Dentists prefer to operate a system in which patients have to ring around. That is no good for my constituent Carolynn Bain, who rang around all the lists in Worthing and Eastbourne, and in the end had to go to London for her dental treatment. She was told that dentists do not want to update the system because they are afraid of the effect. When I have asked the CCB—sorry, the ICB; they change the names of these darned things so often that no one can remember—it says that that inhibits the information to constituents. We need a system, like we have for doctors, of proper planning in catchment areas. We need the ICB to be able to say, “This is the population in this area. This is what is needed.” Just like with doctors, patients should be able to choose dentists out of area or dentists they have a connection with, perhaps because they work in an area but do not live there. There needs to be proper planning, and there is none at the moment. That is why Labour’s plans for more urgent appointments and better and more NHS training are welcome.
I hope the Government will also look at dental schools. At the moment there is no dental school in Sussex, Hampshire, Surrey or Kent—none in the south-east. There are London dental schools. That makes a huge difference to the ability to train and recruit dentists, because many will end up staying in the area in which they have trained. I urge the Minister to look at establishing a new dental school in the south-east—we would love to have it in Brighton, but Hastings is also a good option. Our Hastings candidate will be pushing very hard for that. After the closure of the University of Brighton in Hastings, there is a need for a new university or medical school there, and that would be very welcome.
We have heard a lot of pledges from the Government to increase the number of dental hygienists, but this is a huge smokescreen. Under the NHS, patients can only access a dental hygienist if they have been referred by a dentist. If they go private, they can pay to go directly. Actually, we should encourage people to go to directly to dental hygienists once a year, and once a year to a dentist. There is no need for a six-monthly check-up with a dentist if a patient also goes to a hygienist. But at the moment, patients cannot go to a hygienist unless they are referred as a tier 2 form of treatment, so they cannot do it on the initial check-up. That needs to change to make dental hygienists relevant; otherwise, the Government are talking about recruiting into the private sector a load of dental hygienists no NHS patient will be able to see.
The same goes for the list system. It is absolute madness that if a patient has not seen a dentist for six months or a year, they can be thrown off the dentist’s list. That would never happen with a doctor. We need to change the funding model so that dentists are encouraged to keep patients on their list if they have not seen them. They should get a bonus for seeing them, and some reward for preventive treatment. That preventive treatment might not always involve seeing a patient, but may involve educational resources or sending them to a hygienist, with the hygienist reporting that no further action is needed.
All those things could be done. The start of an education and preventive approach should be in our schools. That is why Labour is pledging to take action. That is why this country has been so let down by the Government.

Simon Lightwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on such an important topic. Last year, I launched my “Save Wakefield’s Smiles” campaign to highlight the horrifying state of dentistry access across my constituency. I have had an avalanche of constituents contact me to share their heartbreaking experiences of trying to get an appointment in Wakefield.
With permission, I will briefly share two of those testimonials with the House. Anne is a 71-year-old pensioner entitled to free dental treatment, and she has been trying to get a dentist appointment for five years. She told me that she feels let down by this country. She says that she has worked all her life since she was 15 and paid into the system for her entire career, and now has to decide whether to heat her home or get her teeth seen to.
Steve says he has been waiting two years for an NHS dentist because he cannot afford the estimated £5,000 it would cost to fix his teeth privately. He says that the anguish he has experienced while waiting has severely impacted his mental health. Steve told me:
“I barely leave the house. I am too scared to change job because I worry no one wants to hire someone in desperate need of healthcare.”
Like Anne, Steve feels frustrated. He says that he does not think it is too much to ask to receive the care he pays his contributions towards.
Those are a handful of cases from my constituency, but I know that up and down the country, the story is the same. Nine out of 10 clinics in England do not have the capacity to take on new patients. Millions of our constituents simply cannot get an appointment, and this Tory Government have failed every single one of them. Perhaps most shockingly of all, one in 10 of our constituents now feel that they have no choice but to resort to their own DIY dentistry. What kind of country have we become? What sort of grim Dickensian dystopia have this shambolic Tory Government presided over, where people are pulling out their own teeth with pliers over a sink?
Colleagues will recall, I hope, my first ever question in Prime Minister’s questions last year. I pressed the Prime Minister on the national dental emergency. I looked him in the eye and told him how 25% of five-year-olds in Wakefield already have visible tooth decay. I told him  how less than half of Wakefield’s children managed to get an NHS dentist appointment in 2022, and I told him how a constituent of mine had desperately telephoned every single dentist in Wakefield to find an appointment while his daughter cried in pain from her teeth, black with decay.
From the Prime Minister’s reply and follow-up letter to my question, you would honestly think he was living on a different planet. He boasted of the funding he is putting into NHS dentistry, boasted of the number of NHS dentists and boasted that he had made reforms to the NHS dental contract. In fact, the British Dental Association has stated that the Prime Minister’s boastful claims may have been inaccurate. I fear he may have inadvertently misled the House as a result. Indeed, the British Dental Association has been clear that it believes the Prime Minister “offered a grotesque misinterpretation” of his work to address the crisis. The Prime Minister may have promised a dentistry recovery plan last year, but months later nothing has been published and he has nothing to show for it.
The Prime Minister may have admitted last week that he is running scared of a May election, but we on the Opposition Benches could not be more ready to take our dentistry rescue plan to the British people. Labour will address the immediate crisis head-on by providing 700,000 more urgent dental appointments and recruiting new dentists to the areas most in need. To treat the long-term challenges, Labour will reform the dentistry contract, which is no longer fit for purpose in its current form. With a vital focus on prevention, Labour will introduce supervised toothbrushing in primary schools.
Unlike Government Members, who had a soft spot for announcing economy-crashing, uncosted policies under the previous Prime Minister, Labour has a dentistry rescue plan that would be fully funded by abolishing the non-dom tax status. We have an incredible, ambitious plan ready to go from day one of a desperately needed Labour Government. The Prime Minister may be scared of an election, but when I speak to my constituents and hear how badly we need to fix our public services, I know where I stand—bring it on.

Angela Eagle: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood), who made a superb speech. I have childhood memories of much older relatives who grew up before the NHS was created having no teeth left at all—they had had them all extracted because it was cheaper. I never thought that might start to happen again, but I fear that in some cases we are getting far too close to it with the current situation in our dental service. As many hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out in today’s debate, this is not only serious for oral health but has other health connotations. New medical insights link oral hygiene with heart and lung health. If we neglect oral hygiene to the extent that we are—we have heard about that in the debate—that will have huge implications for the health of future generations.
As Labour’s motion sets out, NHS dentistry is in crisis and is approaching breaking point, if it has not already passed it. The people of the UK are paying the price, and the poorest are paying a much heavier price. The Nuffield Trust says that NHS dentistry
“is at its most perilous point in its 75-year history.”
In Wallasey, my constituents are living with the reality of that day to day. As we have heard, a seven-year-old is more likely to be hospitalised for rotting teeth than for any other medical issue. That is an astonishing statistic. Many people—including my constituents—are growing up in places where they simply cannot get access to dental care. In Wallasey, only two dental surgeries will take a child as a new patient, and not a single one is taking any new adult patients on to its books.
In Wallasey, we have seen people kicked off existing lists without notice. That happened often during the pandemic, with the excuse that they had not visited the dentist in two years—they could not, as the dentists were closed because of the pandemic—and they cannot get access to another provider. There are care homes in my constituency where there is no access to dental treatment for those living in them. I have had email after email from constituents writing to me in despair, disbelief and often pain, all unable to get an appointment. NHS workers, an expectant mother, a retired firefighter, concerned parents and disabled people with declining health are all unable to see a dentist because of the terrible 14 years of Tory neglect.
Last summer, Sarah wrote to me when she was at her wits’ end. She had moved into my constituency from Liverpool a few years ago with her partner, pleased to be closer to family as they prepared to welcome a baby. Despite their home being close to four different dentists, Sarah was unable to register with any surgery. Each one was not accepting new patients. None even had a waiting list that she could join. She has now lost one molar and broken three. She has tried and failed to get an emergency appointment numerous times, and she has had to call 111 in desperation. She is in constant pain and still has no access. Her little boy, who is now four years old, has never seen a dentist, despite his parents’ best efforts.
Dentists, too, are outraged. Last year, Annette, a local dentist who has a superb surgery and has worked for the NHS her whole life, wrote to me in total despair. Her surgery has being working overtime to see NHS patients and to try to meet the unmet need—it has even overperformed on its targets to get the NHS to care for local people who desperately need it. She was doing that, but it got to the stage where her surgery was not being paid for NHS work due to errors and unexplained hold-ups in money. Just before Christmas, she said:
“At the end of next year I will have been a dentist for 50 years, always working on the NHS. I don’t think I have ever known it in such a bad state, nor for the Government to have so little care of its state.”
She is over-worked, under-compensated, exhausted and unable to keep up with demand, and she is not being paid for the work that she is doing. It is a terrible state of affairs.
We see a picture of underspent ICB dental budgets and massive unmet need. It is obvious that those things demonstrate a system that simply is not working. The Government know about this as well as we do and announced last April that there was going to be a plan, but we still have not seen one. If they care, where is their sense of urgency? They cannot say that our plan to put NHS dentistry in working order will not work when they will not bring forward their own plan. They must get on with it now. My Wallasey constituents are in pain, and I expect it to be alleviated.

Sarah Edwards: Most of us get two sets of teeth in our lifetime. We learn with our milk teeth how to take care of them, and then, as adults, we must take care of the teeth that should see us through to the end of our days. Often overlooked, sadly, is that it is getting harder and harder to take care of our teeth. In my constituency, seven dental surgeries responded to a survey and revealed that five were not accepting any new adult patients. In 2022, the Local Government Association found that Tamworth was one of the most difficult places in the country to register for a dentist, with a striking ratio of 0.065 dentists per 1,000 people. Tamworth is growing. Many new houses are being built in the constituency, and it is consistently raised with me that there are no services to match the growth in population. That refers not only to schools and GP surgeries, but to NHS dentistry. Tamworth’s population has grown by nearly 3% between 2011 and 2021.
We also know that tooth decay is now the most common reason that children aged between the ages of six and 10 are admitted to hospital. It is therefore no surprise that the Health and Social Care Committee report in 2023 branded the current contract “not fit for purpose” and described the state of the service as
“unacceptable in the 21st century”.
The current contract prioritises Government aims over patient care. The Government also did not fundamentally reform the contract when advised to by the Health and Social Care Committee, so patients are left with inadequate provision and a lottery in access to care. Last year, over 12 million people were unable to access dental care. That is more than one in four adults in England and three times as many as before the pandemic. In times of crisis, more and more people are picking up the pliers and turning to do-it-yourself dentistry, with a poll from YouGov indicating that one in 10 adults attempted some form of the dangerous practice last year.
Free healthcare at the point of access is a cornerstone of this country pioneered by a Labour Government, yet recent Healthwatch polling shows that one in 10 people in England paid for private dental treatment in the last 12 months because they could not find an NHS dentist. This is having adverse effects on the detection of oral cancer. I campaigned against the privatisation of cancer care services in Staffordshire and I am dismayed that one of the detection and diagnosis avenues is becoming privatised by stealth. Millions who cannot afford to go down that route are left without the help they need. I share concerns raised by my colleagues that the Government are rolling out a pilot in Cornwall in which only children and the most vulnerable patients will be eligible for NHS treatment.
The Government have been ignoring all the symptoms of decay, and now NHS dentistry is in need of a root canal. It is not enough to wait for the tooth fairy to fix these problems. I support my Labour colleagues in calling for urgent reform. Like a cavity, we must repair the damage caused by this Government. We need Labour’s plan to create 700,000 more appointments a year. We need targeted recruitment schemes to fill the voids of decay left by a lack of strategy. We need reform to the dental contract. It is time to rescue NHS dentistry from this crisis, and get patients seen on time and smiling again.

Alistair Strathern: As a man with a great fondness and enthusiasm for Irn-Bru and a habit of throwing my body on the line on the football pitch to make up for a lack of skill, it is fair to say that over the years I have had to rely quite a few times on fantastic NHS dental care. But, like for far too many of my constituents, those positive past experiences of NHS dentistry are exactly that—a thing of the past.
We have all heard today stories of constituents who have struggled to access dentist care when they needed it and struggled to pay for private care in the absence of NHS provision in their area. Whether they have been struck off as a patient over time or their NHS practice has gone completely private, our constituents are repeatedly paying the price for the continued failure to stop the rot in dentist provision. Just in the last week, I have had constituents contacting me to express their frustration and challenge in accessing routine dental appointments, with NHS dentists telling them they can only have emergency care. People are forced to wait for things to get worse just so they can afford to be seen. Another told me about the incredible cost they are now having to pay to drive to see an NHS dentist, having been pushed further and further afield as more and more practices near them have withdrawn eligibility. This should not be acceptable, but shamefully it is far too common. Last year nearly 800 people across Bedfordshire were admitted to accident and emergency units for tooth-related reasons. In the year before, 165 children in central Bedfordshire presented at hospitals requiring a tooth extraction: 165 young people had to go to hospital to receive treatment for conditions that should have been picked up months earlier. Across the country, nearly 5 million people were told when they last inquired that no appointment was available, either because the practice was not taking more patients or because it was fully booked.
Sadly, under the present Government this situation has become endemic, and what is so heartbreaking is that it is not a new issue. For some time, Members on both sides of the House have been sounding the alarm bell, but rather than working with professionals to bring about the changes that are needed, the Government have ignored them and just tweaked around the edges. The effect has been the continued decay of dental provision throughout the country. We are nearly a year on from the promise of a dental recovery plan which is yet to be published, but our NHS dentists need immediate support to alleviate the pressures they are facing and the pain their patients are suffering.
Shamefully, as we have already heard today, integrated care boards throughout the country—including mine—are struggling to make use of the money available to them because of the challenges posed by the current funding and contract structure for bringing dentists into the NHS fold. That cannot be acceptable to anyone in the Chamber who recognises the existence of a crisis that requires emergency action to put it right, and certainly requires a plan that involves a fixed date rather than some unspecified point in the future.
We need a Government who will finally prioritise this issue, take the necessary action to ensure that dentists are available to those who need them, and return the service to a better footing for all our constituents. We need incentives for new dentists to work in areas where   there is the greatest need, we need 700,000 more urgent appointments for patients requiring, for instance, fillings and root canal treatment, and yes—we need supervised toothbrushing in schools for three to five-year-olds to target the root of some of these challenges. If Conservative Members have a problem with that, I dread to think what they will make of some of the things that are already happening in schools which are now teaching cooking, physical education and hygiene. All those subjects play an important part in our school system. When we are facing such a clear issue as the current state of dental care for young people, it is shocking to think that we could sit on our hands and not do our bit to try and support them.
As well as all that, we need the fundamental reform of the NHS dentists’ contract that will put the service back on to a good footing. Together, Labour Members have a plan to put dentistry back on track, but I hope all Members will agree that my constituents have already had to wait long enough just to have an MP who wants to do this job. As the Government drag out and drag out the date of the next general election, my constituents should not be having to wait for an election to see national change on this issue. Please, let us stop pushing that strategy further and further away. Let us stop turning to infighting and being obsessed with who our next leader will be, and agree together today to put something right. Labour has a plan to get NHS dentistry back on track, and I hope that Members in all parts of the House will back it today.

Ashley Dalton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, because inability to gain access to an NHS dentist is an issue plaguing my constituents.
In 2024 Tory Britain, the opening of additional NHS dentistry practices is national news, with reports of people queuing on high streets just for the chance to be seen by a dentist. This is a Britain where a call to an NHS dentist to inquire about registering as a new patient is met with laughter down the phone. That is not hyperbole or hearsay: it is what I heard when I tried to register my 88-year-old mother and myself with a new NHS dentist. My dad does not need one: he had his teeth taken out for his 21st birthday, because—my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) made this point—it was cheaper and easier. It is shocking that we seem to be back in that situation today. In 2024, it is easier to get your hands on Taylor Swift tickets than to get an NHS dental appointment.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who is no longer in her place, my constituency is a rural one, and it is a beauty. However, for many of my constituents, living in a rural constituency makes accessing vital services nothing short of stress-inducing. The presence of the new Labour Members, my hon. Friends the Members for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) and for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern), would point to the idea that people in rural communities do believe that Labour has got a grip on what rural communities need; and our colleagues the candidate in Hexham, Joe Morris, and the candidate in Carlisle, Julie Minns, are also telling me that their local people, and hopefully future constituents, believe that Labour has a grip on what is needed in rural communities.
When services are not available in Burscough, in my constituency, it is not as simple as phoning the next practice down the road, or the one just over from that. It means travelling to Skelmersdale, to Southport, to Liverpool. One of my constituents has contacted every practice in our constituency and beyond, from Ormskirk to Blackpool, and is unable to register anywhere as an NHS patient—and Blackpool is 50 miles away, a four-hour round trip by public transport. Another parent in my constituency has been unable to register either of their children, both of whom have additional needs, with an NHS practice.
Another recent arrival to Skem cannot register any of his family members as an NHS patient. I took up his case with the ICB—I am sure that the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who is still in his place, would approve. The ICB told me the shocking truth that Government funding of NHS dentistry is only sufficient to enable around 50% of the population to access routine dental care. So where is the funding for the other half? What are the other 50% of our constituents meant to do?

Peter Gibson: The hon. Lady is obviously in a different ICB area from mine and I am not privy to the detail in respect of her ICB’s underspend, but it would be wonderful to know whether her ICB does in fact have an underspend.

Ashley Dalton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for leading up conveniently to my next point. The issue is that the ICB is actually bringing back more money than ever before from our dentists, and the local NHS dentist in Burscough is telling me that that is because they cannot recruit dentists or hygienists or other dental professionals in order to meet their target. They would love to do it; they cannot. The hon. Member for Darlington also talked about choice, but it is no choice when the only choice is private or nowt—and that is what my constituents are looking at.
If only the problem stopped at dentistry. The inability to access a dentist and regular check-ups leads to people having to visit their GP for knock-on health issues, or they are in so much pain that they are forced to end up at an already stretched A&E. Under this Government, the state of NHS dentistry services has ended up as dismal. A member of the public who contacted Healthwatch Lancashire recently, reported that they were in so much pain that they were feeling suicidal.
The public know that they cannot trust the Tories with NHS dentistry, and the alternative with Labour is clear. Prevention is by far the most effective way to improve patient outcomes across the NHS, and there is no better way to prevent than to educate. We have heard that a Labour Government will introduce supervised toothbrushing in schools for three to five-year-olds, giving children the best chance to avoid tooth decay altogether; 700,000 more urgent appointments for the most serious treatments such as fillings and root canals; and will incentivise dentists to work in areas where they are needed most. That is music to the ears of residents in rural areas such as mine. Even better than that, it is all paid for, by ensuring that the people who make Britain their home pay their taxes here, abolishing the non-dom tax status once and for all.
Toothache is nothing compared with the hurt of another five years of this Government’s inaction on dentistry. It is time they called a general election to make way for a Government with a plan to fix our nation’s teeth.

Nigel Evans: I am afraid that I have to reduce the time limit to five minutes for the last four speakers, so that we get the Division as close to half-past 4 as possible.

Sarah Dyke: The British Dental Association recently said that NHS dentistry is facing access problems “on an unprecedented scale”. Those of us who live in rural areas such as Somerton and Frome will recognise the cavity of dental provision across rural Somerset. There simply are not enough dentists, as there is only one dentist delivering NHS services for every 1,773 people.
I have been in touch with dental surgeries across my constituency and none could provide, nor could they tell me of any NHS dentists in the area who are taking on new adult patients. Dentists cannot signpost patients to an alternative service because they simply do not exist, causing residents anxiety and frustration.
This Conservative Government have recognised that our NHS dental services are rotting, but they do not know how to fix them. They are the ones who have underfunded our services and failed to reform NHS dental contracts. The Government pledged to create an NHS dentistry recovery plan back in April 2023, but it has not yet been published. And while they delay and allow problems to fester, my constituents in Somerton and Frome are suffering in dental agony.
A constituent got in touch with me recently. They are 60 years old, and they work hard in their community. However, they have not been able to see a dentist for years. They told me that they feel hopeless. They are in constant pain and no longer have the confidence to smile, to socialise, to work or even to go shopping. They are left isolated by this lack of provision and, unfortunately, it is becoming way too common, especially in rural areas. The shortage of dentists is a major issue that limits access to oral healthcare, especially for elderly residents who are at higher risk of dental decay and social isolation. There are specific challenges to rural dentistry provision, recruitment and retention. These need to be recognised because gaps in provision lead to gaps in teeth.
This issue is prevalent in South Cambridgeshire, where there is a 100% refusal rate for new NHS dental patients. The lack of dental provision in rural areas is exacerbated by the fact that the east of England is one of the few regions of the country with no dental school to train new dentists.
I specifically want to see policies that address the lack of dentists in rural areas. Our communities are spread across a large geographical area, and if the one remaining dental surgery in a town such as Somerton or Castle Cary in my constituency cannot take on new patients, residents are faced with major obstacles to accessing a dentist. I want to see mobile dentistry hubs established to cater for rural communities that do not have dental provision.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that we require reform to NHS dental service contracts to provide an incentive for dentists to continue to provide these services, and to ensure they are able to take on new patients.   A more holistic approach to dental services is needed, one that emphasises preventive care and that understands that dental health is intrinsically linked to general health.
It is possible to improve access to dental health in rural communities and to bridge the gap to dental care, but we must provide dentists with the respect and funding they need and deserve.

Keir Mather: Before I begin my remarks, let me just say how disheartened I am to see the Government Benches deserted in this crucial debate on the state of NHS dentistry; nowhere could the picture of the dereliction of duty that the Government have shown to our NHS dentistry be made clearer. However, it is a pleasure to join so many Labour colleagues to speak in favour of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion on dentistry, a part of our healthcare system that is in rapid decline and that has been left to rot by the absent leadership of those on the Conservative Benches—they were there until very recently.
The number of active NHS dentists in England is at its lowest in a decade. In my maiden speech, I mentioned that one of my constituents, too, had resorted to pulling out one of her daughter’s teeth because dental provision is so poor in my constituency. Another constituent, a veteran, has been left without a dentist because armed forces personnel are removed from their home dentist upon joining up and cannot find a practice that will let them register when they return. How do the Government find it acceptable that people who take the bold and brave decision to serve our country are left abandoned by an NHS dental system that is supposed to be there for them?
It has been documented that our country is now plagued with dental deserts. According to a report published last year by the Association of Dental Groups, only a third of adults and less than half of English children have access to an NHS dentist. Some 90% of dental practices no longer accept NHS patients, leaving 4 million people without access to NHS dental care. In Selby and Ainsty, we have been left with just nine dental practices offering NHS services; we have just nine for a vast rural constituency that stretches from Doncaster in the south to Harrogate in the north, and suffers fundamentally with issues such as a lack of public transport in our rural areas—it is simply not good enough.
We did not get into this situation overnight; we have had 13 years—almost 14 now—of mismanagement by the Conservative party, which has shown a complete dereliction of its duty to protect the health of the British people. The Government’s chronic underfunding of dental practices, with funding cut by a third in the past decade, has meant that patients are being failed on an unprecedented scale. The Government and the Minister have been quick to blame the dental contract, as well as the covid-19 pandemic, for the crisis that dentistry faces, but the Government have had 13 years to revise that contract, stabilise dentistry and make it fit for the future. Instead, they have chosen to rest on their laurels and have pursued muddled plans, allowing dentistry to crumble.
The crisis in our dental system can be traced back to one fundamental cause: challenges to our workforce. Over the past decade, there has been a complete failure to forward plan about the workforce needs of our dentistry system in the future. We must be aware that any hope of recovery must be catalysed and underpinned by a comprehensive workforce plan that sets the NHS and dentistry up for a long-term, stable and productive future that serves the citizens of our country. That brings me on to Labour’s plan to revive NHS dentistry. It was Labour’s plan 75 years ago that brought NHS dentistry into existence and it will be Labour’s plan that will save NHS dentistry from the perilous position that the Conservative party has created. Our plan will give patients the care they need and deserve. Our plan will fund 700,000 more urgent appointments, for things such as fillings and root canals. We will incentivise new dentists to work in areas with the greatest need, tackling those dental deserts that are now so rife across our country. We will implement supervised toothbrushing in schools, so we can directly tackle these issues at source, and in the long run we will reform the dental contract so that we can rebuild the service and that NHS dentistry is truly there for all who need it. This powerful and comprehensive plan will give dentistry the staff, equipment and modern technology it needs to get patients seen on time, and help thousands of people across my constituency who are in such desperate need of the dental care that, fundamentally, they deserve as British citizens.

Alex Sobel: Access to dental care in West Yorkshire is a problem that cannot be ignored. Dental care is a fundamental right and its absence has far-reaching consequences for the health of our whole community. Currently, no dentists are accepting new NHS patients in the whole of Leeds, with waiting lists lasting years. Only recently, a dentist in my constituency, in the rural market town of Otley, withdrew from the NHS scheme citing a “chronic lack of investment”; Manor Square has been a reliable provider of NHS dentistry to the local community for many years—intergenerational communities and families have been receiving NHS care at that practice for many decades—but now they cannot receive it there.
The practice’s withdrawal from the scheme has affected 15,000 patients and raises serious questions about the future availability of affordable dental care in the whole area. One constituent was paying around £45 for two annual check-ups at the practice, with their children receiving free dental care. Under the practice’s new private dental plan, the cost will be £640, which is clearly unaffordable for many families in Otley. Such costs are set against rising costs for families across the board.
The decision appears to be yet another symptom of the chronic underfunding and neglect faced by the NHS. Oral health is an integral part of our overall wellbeing and neglecting it can lead to serious health issues down the line. The withdrawal of NHS dental care not only affects individuals, but has a broader impact on the health infrastructure of our communities. The consequences are felt not just by those who currently need dental services, but by all of us who value a robust and comprehensive healthcare system.
We need an urgent reform of dental care. We need to recognise its critical role in maintaining overall health. Our communities deserve access to quality and affordable dental services. The Government have no clear plan, but Labour does. Labour plans to provide 700,000 additional appointments and education on basic life skills in areas where children’s dental health is most affected, through supervised toothbrushing, and to reform the dental contract, which the Government have failed to do over the last 14 years. As many colleagues have said, there are major issues facing the workforce as many NHS dentists have left to practise privately, or have left the UK for countries where dentistry is more highly valued than it is by our Government.
To conclude, the lack of dental care in West Yorkshire is a serious concern that demands immediate attention. It is not just a matter of oral health but a reflection of broader challenges across the NHS. That is why we should support the motion.

Nigel Evans: Members who have taken part in the debate should make their way to the Chamber now, as the wind-ups will begin after Mr Western finishes his speech.

Andrew Western: After 14 long years of Conservative Government, our country is going backwards. Nothing demonstrates that better than the dire condition of NHS dentistry. What kind of country has this Government allowed us to become when people are forced to pull out their own teeth with pliers, because locating a dentist taking new patients is almost impossible? Talk about going backwards: the Conservatives are dragging us back to Victorian times.
The lack of access to NHS dentistry is one of the most common issues raised with me by constituents in Stretford and Urmston. The most recent data available shows that only 4% of dental practices in my local authority area of Trafford are accepting new adult patients on the NHS. Moreover, the current NHS “find a dentist” website is badly out of date. Despite claims to the contrary, a search using a postcode from Old Trafford in my constituency reveals that none of the top five results is accepting new patients. My constituents tell me they waste time they do not have calling around surgeries because of the results they have been given, only to be disappointed.
For the lucky few who can find a dentist, the wait times for treatment are simply unacceptable. As of September last year, there were almost 2,000 patients waiting for oral surgery in my local authority area of Trafford, with the majority waiting far longer than the NHS 18-week target for treatment. Behind these numbers are people enduring months of pain, distress and misery. In many cases, their ability to work or learn is affected. They cannot sleep. They cannot enjoy the basics of life, like food and drink, and do not feel confident enough to go out with friends and family socially. That is the impact. That is the devastation that this crisis is causing up and down the country.
Although no one doubts the challenges that the pandemic has caused NHS dentistry, the truth is that a lack of funding and a failure to reform in the preceding decade left NHS dentistry uniquely exposed to the impact of the virus. Between 2010-11 and 2021-22, total funding  for dental services in England fell by 8%, leaving budgets that have been unable to keep up with inflation or population growth. Although today many Conservative Members have been quick to complain about the dental contract, their party has been somewhat slower to do anything about it, taking 12 years to make what have widely been acknowledged as minor tweaks—tweaks that were criticised at the time by the BDA, which said that their implementation would make “little meaningful difference”.
The Prime Minister pledged to restore NHS dentistry during his leadership campaign, but, over a year later, we know that a pledge from this Prime Minister is the kiss of death for whatever service he is highlighting. Lo and behold, his dental recovery plan, which was promised last April, is still nowhere to be seen. In contrast, Labour has a plan and it will not take us 14 years to deliver it. We will take immediate action to provide: 700,000 more urgent appointments; new incentives for new dentists to work in areas with the greatest need; supervised toothbrushing in schools for three to five-year-olds; and reform of the dental contract to rebuild the service in the long run. That is the type of ambition needed to address the scale of this enormous crisis, and it is an ambition that will have the funding it needs to become reality.
Politics is about choices. We on the Labour Benches choose NHS dentistry, ending the misery, the wait and the pain for so many, over tax breaks for the super-rich. There should be no contest. I urge all Members, including those on the Conservative Benches, to support the substantive motion.

Preet Kaur Gill: I start by expressing my thanks to Members across the House for their many powerful contributions this afternoon. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood), for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather), for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern), and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). They all spoke forcefully about the struggles of their constituents to find an NHS dentist. That is far too common, as we have heard today. Recently I was contacted by a constituent whose daughter was told she would have to wait four years for an appointment to get braces. She is 13 now and will be 18 by the time that she is seen. That is not acceptable.
Let me also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for raising the issue of DIY dentistry. Recent polling has found that around one in 10 adults has attempted some form of DIY dentistry. No one should be forced to pull out their own teeth with pliers. That is Victorian healthcare in Britain in 2024. The British Dental Association survey found that more than half of dentists in England have reduced their NHS commitment in the past few years, and almost half are considering either a change of career, early retirement  or turning fully private. I hope that this is a wake-up call for Ministers. All of this paints a bleak picture, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Nuffield Trust described it as a “widespread crisis”, bringing NHS dentistry to its “most perilous point” in its 75-year history. That is why we are debating this motion today. Without urgent action, we are looking at the end of NHS dentistry as we know it.
Seventeen months ago, while he was losing a leadership election to the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), the Prime Minister pledged to “restore” NHS dentistry. I thought the Prime Minister might have learned his lesson about five-point pledge cards by now, but I remind the House what he promised: ringfenced funding; frontline retention; strengthened prevention; and contract reform. Yet hardly any of that has been delivered. There are fewer NHS dentists now than when he took charge, and they are doing less NHS work. There has been no national roll-out of a supervised toothbrushing scheme to promote healthy habits among children, despite cavities being the top reason they are admitted to hospital. As the Health and Social Care Committee has said, changes to the dental contract
“constitute tweaks rather than anything close to ‘reform’.”
The recovery plan, promised last April, is nowhere to be seen. The Government’s one big idea so far has been to tweak the dental activity contract to allow practices to deliver 10% more NHS work but, having listened to today’s debate, I do not think that a fraction of practices upping their workload by 10% will actually cut it—talk about toothless—and it certainly will not without the money to fund it. We have heard some laboured explanations from the Secretary of State about how local dentistry budgets can be ringfenced, yet simultaneously ICBs have been told that they can raid those same budgets to balance their bottom lines.
Let me raise a specific example. Last week, it was reported that one integrated care board in the west midlands has instructed practices that they will no longer receive funding to deliver the extra 10% of NHS work that was promised. Labour’s candidate in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Adam Jogee, told me that people were already struggling to access basic dentistry as many dentists are not accepting new patients. ICBs are supposed to improve access locally, better integrate services and address inequalities. For one practice in Birmingham, the decision means that from next month the money for it to see NHS patients will run out for the rest of the financial year. The U-turn means that dentists who want to do more NHS work simply cannot. That is bonkers!
It is not just happening in the west midlands: throughout the country there are more examples of care boards cutting back funding for dentistry. Eight out of 10 practices are not taking on new NHS patients, and people are pulling out not just their hair but their own teeth, because they cannot get an appointment. One local dentist in Birmingham said:
“The system is on the verge of collapse—and the only stakeholder that will eventually lose out is the patient.”
That is not restoring NHS dentistry; that is another broken promise. Does the Minister know how many other ICBs are withdrawing funding? Have the Government even made an assessment of the U-turn’s impact on thousands of people who cannot get an appointment  with an NHS dentist? Do they know how much scheduled dental activity will be lost under the revised financial plans of ICBs?
As we have heard today, the consequences for patients are shocking, particularly for children and the most vulnerable. Tooth decay is the No. 1 reason for hospital admissions among children aged six to 10. Tens of thousands of children are left in pain for months, if not years, waiting for procedures. They face difficulties learning, eating and sleeping. It is particularly grim when we consider that children from the most deprived areas are three times more likely to have hospital extractions than their peers.
How can the Government hope to level up opportunity for every child in Britain when some are in too much pain even to concentrate at school? Sixty thousand school days were lost to this problem last year. That is why our plan includes rolling out a national supervised toothbrushing scheme that targets the most deprived 20% of children, embedding good habits. It is recognition that prevention is better than cure. It will cost £9 million per year, which is dwarfed by the estimated £51 million that it cost for child tooth extractions in hospital in the latest year. Labour actually understands good economics—that dealing with issues early saves cases worsening and ending up in secondary care, which puts pressure on hospitals and costs the taxpayer far more.
While the Government have been rolling back their ambitions, Labour will ramp ours up. Our motion proposes giving dental practices extra money to run urgent care programmes to give people access to timely acute care, which they simply cannot get right now. We will fund an extra 700,000 urgent appointments a year from revenues generated by abolishing the non-doms tax status. Not only is that costed, but it is deliverable and doable, because dental practices have the capacity to deliver; the issue is that they do not have a Government with a plan that gives them the certainty they need. Our constituents need dental appointments far more than the wealthy need tax breaks.
I am grateful to colleagues who have raised the issue of the dental activity contract. They are right that it is no longer fit for purpose, and I think that Ministers know that—despite having pledged to reform it 14 years ago, which they have clearly failed to do. Do they share my concern that without wider reform to tackle retention issues in NHS dentistry, recruitment alone will be like trying to fill a leaky bucket?
In the meantime, NHS dentistry is dying a slow death. I was shocked to read about a pilot scheme in Cornwall in which only children and the most vulnerable are being seen on the NHS. At one practice, 4,500 patients were kicked off the books and told either to go private or to find another dentist. This is what we can expect under five more years of the Conservatives: dentistry for the few and everyone else left to sink or swim. We in the Labour party will never accept that.
NHS dentistry is an issue that crosses party lines and is as desperate in many Conservative constituencies as it is in Labour ones. We have good data on dentistry practices self-reporting whether they can take on new NHS patients. In Milton Keynes North, 12 out of 12 practices are not accepting any new adult patients, and in Bassetlaw, 10 out of 10 surgeries are not accepting new adult patients and seven in 10 are not accepting anyone at all. In Louth and Horncastle, the Health Secretary’s own constituency, not a single practice is accepting new  adult patients. That is a big constituency; imagine how far someone living on the coast would have to travel to get an appointment. I heard it is about 21 miles to the nearest dentist. Is her message to constituents just to get on their bike? Or will she back our proposal today for a targeted recruitment scheme to train up new dentists in left-behind areas?
The crisis in NHS dentistry is urgent and cannot be ignored any longer. The Government need to drop the spin and accept the facts. In the short term, services need to be put on a sustainable footing, and in the long term we need deeper reform to ensure that everyone who needs an appointment can get one. I urge Members across the House to do right by their constituents today and vote for Labour’s motion to rescue NHS dentistry from further decay.

Andrea Leadsom: I welcome the chance to come to the House to hear from colleagues about the challenges of dentistry and access to dentistry, as well as some of their constructive ideas for our recovery plan, so that all our constituents can get the healthcare they deserve at a time when systems continue to be under huge pressure since the covid pandemic. The Opposition were rather determined to debate dentistry today; I am a bit suspicious that that is because they are trying to pre-guess what the Government’s dentistry recovery plan will contain, but I am as desperate as they are that we get on with it and I can assure all colleagues across the House that I am working flat-out on that.
When the Prime Minister asked me to take on this job in November, I leapt at the chance to improve our whole nation’s health and especially—as colleagues throughout the House will know—to prevent future ill health in babies and children. It is the chance to change the future health of every baby and child that is the big opportunity here, and I am proud of some of the measures we have already introduced to support supervised toothbrushing through the start for life programme and in local authorities.
The Opposition’s motion talks about supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds. I do not know whether they do not know this, but we have teeth from before we are born. If children do not get your supervised toothbrushing until they are three at a minimum, their teeth are about four-and-a-half years old. It is much more important to have that supervised toothbrushing in the family hub, education for parents and supervised toothbrushing in nurseries. Let us say that that is something we can all agree on: children certainly have their teeth long before they are three, so I think our plan will be significantly better.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, recovering and reforming NHS dentistry is a top priority for the Government. That is why one of the first things I did as a new Minister was to host a roundtable with key figures from the dental sector, including the chief dental officer Jason Wong and dentists from right throughout the country, to hear about the challenges they face. I have also met colleagues from throughout the House to hear about the specific challenges in their constituencies. I have heard them loud and clear, and every bit of feedback is informing our dentistry recovery plan.
I want to set out some of the recovery that is already under way—not enough by any means, but good progress, and not the failure that Labour wants to portray it as. It is a good recovery from a disastrous situation during covid. In 2022-23, 6.1 million more courses of treatment have been delivered than in 2021-22, and seven out of 10 patients have had a good overall experience of dental services, according to surveys. More than 18 million adults were seen by an NHS dentist in the 24 months to June 2023, which was an increase of 10% on the previous year. Some 6.4 million children were seen by an NHS dentist in the 12 months up to 30 June, which was an increase of 800,000 compared with the previous year. Nearly 1,400 more NHS dentists were available in 2022-23 than in 2010-11.
Of course, in our long-term workforce plan we announced a 40% increase to dentistry training places—that is incredibly important. I pay tribute to all our NHS staff, who continue to work tirelessly to deliver vital dental care to those who need it the most. Dental staff deserve our support, which is why we are working flat out on both short and long-term solutions for the recovery and reform of NHS dentistry.
Colleagues raised a number of points that I will seek to answer in turn, although I apologise that cannot deal with them all. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) and a number of other Opposition Members raised the issue of tooth decay in children. I totally agree with her that good oral hygiene right from the very beginning, even before milk teeth come through, is absolutely crucial. She also praised community dental services, and I share her gratitude to those who go out into care homes, hospitals and community centres to help people with urgent care needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who chairs the Health and Social Care Committee, made a number of incredibly helpful points. He asked specifically whether we plan NHS access for all. We certainly intend it for all who need it. He asked how we will realise it. He said that we need to get NHS dentists back on side through our reforms, and asked about the dental workforce. He is absolutely right to raise those issues, all of which will be dealt with in our recovery plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) is a huge campaigner for his area’s needs. He and I have already met on a number of occasions to talk about dentistry. He is right to highlight that some areas are struggling more than others because of under-delivery on NHS contracts on the one hand and insufficient NHS contracts on the other. I am prioritising measures to tackle both.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) talked about the UDA rate, which he said was just too low. I have a lot of sympathy for that argument, but equally, he will appreciate that the ’22 reforms ensured that dentists would be paid more for complex treatments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) rightly challenged Labour. This is a Labour Opposition day, but Labour has no real plan. Labour Members talk about lots more appointments but do not say how they will deliver them. They talk about raising the money from non-doms but they have spent that money many times over. They plan to supervise toothbrushing for three-year-olds, but that is too little, too late.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) raised the issue of access to dentists. He was right to do so because that is a key challenge for everybody throughout the country. There is no clear pattern of deprivation going hand in hand with poor access to dentistry; if anything, the worst access to dentistry is in coastal areas. We are looking carefully at that to improve access right across the country.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) pointed out that his ICB is supporting and promoting drop-ins where there is availability for patients. That is exactly what ICBs should be doing and is brilliant news. I appreciate his points about the difficulty that dentists find in updating the NHS website. If he wants to take that up with me separately, I will be happy to look into it on his behalf. Likewise, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) raised an important case about dental insurance. If she writes to me, I will be happy to take it up on her behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked in particular about the workforce plan and training, which are so important. We will look at many ways of increasing access, both by enabling dental therapists and hygienists to work to the extent of their licence and by getting far more overseas-registered dentists and improving their throughput so that they can start working, particularly in the least well-served areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) highlighted the problem with NHS dentists returning their contracts in order to work privately, and he is right that we need to work on that. He shared great thoughts about a dental school at Teesside University, about the importance of graduate dentists working in the NHS and, of course, about the importance of mobile dentistry, all of which are crucial ideas.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) talked about long distances and the problem of getting dentists into more rural areas. She also raised the fact that toothbrushing and prevention are crucial. There have been some great contributions from Members right across the House, for which I am very grateful.
Dentistry has been one of the most challenging subjects in my portfolio as a new Minister, and I am determined to address it. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined, we are investing £3 billion a year in dentistry, and we need to ensure that every penny is spent properly and delivers the best results. However, the honest truth is that to recover from covid, during which hardly anyone saw a dentist, whether private or NHS, money will not be the silver bullet—a quick funding fix cannot solve all of the backlog and deliver on our ambition that everyone who needs an NHS dentist should be able to access one. As such, we are working on both short-term recovery and long-term system reform, supported by the profession. We will be fixing some of the fundamental flaws in patient access and health inequalities that have been highlighted and exacerbated by the pandemic, many of which have been raised in the Chamber today. We have made good progress on dentistry, particularly through the 2022 reforms, and can be proud of the improvements achieved to date. Again, I sincerely thank all dental staff for their hard work and commitment to recovery.
Finally, having been on the receiving end of “in due course” for many years myself, colleagues will realise that I am chomping at the bit to reveal more about our dentistry recovery plan. I need to ask them all to be patient just a little while longer, but I will change the line about when to expect it from “shortly” to “very shortly”.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 299.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Question agreed to. The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House recognises the impact of a once-in-a-generation pandemic on NHS dental services, with 7 million fewer patients seen in England across 2020 and 2021; notes these challenges were reflected in both Scotland and Wales; acknowledges the steps already taken to recover services in England including the introduction of a minimum rate and increased payments for complex dental activity to better reward dentists for their work; welcomes the publication of the Long Term Workforce Plan which committed to expanding dental training places by 40 per cent; and supports the upcoming publication of the Government’s plan to further recover and reform NHS dentistry and promote good oral health throughout life.

Rwanda Plan Cost and Asylum System

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give direction to the Home Secretary that, no later than 16 January 2024, there be laid before this House:
(a) a list of all payments, either already made or scheduled, to the Government of Rwanda under the Economic Transformation and Integration Fund, including the cost of the fourth- and fifth-year payments due to the Government of Rwanda under the fund;
(b) any document provided by his Department to HM Treasury relating to the per person cost of relocating individuals to Rwanda under the Agreement for the Provision of an Asylum Partnership Agreement to Strengthen Shared International Commitments on the Protection of Refugees and Migrants (CP 994);
(c) an unredacted copy of the confidential memorandum of understanding referred to in response to question 20 at the Public Accounts Committee meeting on 11 December 2023;
(d) any paper setting out the cost per person of relocating individuals to Rwanda and the Government’s assumptions about the number of asylum seekers to be sent to Rwanda per year shared with or provided by HM Treasury between March and July 2022; and
(e) his Department’s internal breakdown of the 35,119 non-substantive asylum decisions made between 1 January and 28 December 2023 showing the number of such decisions that were classified as withdrawn asylum applications and the number further sub-classified as either:
(i) non-substantiated withdrawals
(ii) other withdrawals.
I move the Humble Address to get some basic facts out of Government Ministers. Facts that, so far, they have been desperate to hide: facts about the Rwanda scheme; facts about the asylum backlog; and just basic facts about policies that the Government claim are their flagships but, in fact, are failing. Taxpayers have a right to know how much of their money this Government have promised the Rwandan Government in exchange, frankly, for a series of press releases. More Home Secretaries than asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda so far, and some pretty expensive trips they have turned out to be, with an average cost of around £100 million a trip so far.
The public also has a right to know what has really happened to the asylum backlog, which still stands at nearly 100,000 cases. A total of 35,000 cases have been removed from the figures in the past year with no answers on why or where those people are. Are they still in the UK, or has the Home Office lost them? There are basic facts we need to know, in particular the facts about the Rwanda policy that we need in advance of the debates in Parliament next week. It matters that we know those facts, because we now know that the Prime Minister himself had huge doubts about the costs and efficacy of the scheme when he was Chancellor. However, he is still going ahead with it and he still will not tell us what those costs and those doubts were.
We know now from papers leaked to the BBC that the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister said that the “deterrent won’t work”. He was so sceptical about the scheme that he tried to cancel it in the leadership election and had to be persuaded against doing so, and he pushed for smaller volumes and lower costs, yet he will not tell us what the final agreement on costs and  numbers was between the Home Office and the Treasury. Is it true that he watered down the scheme, just as the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) claims he watered down so many of her proposals?
We still need to know the facts, because the Prime Minister is still going ahead with a scheme that he does not believe in, does not think will work and knows is extortionately expensive, because he is too weak not to. We can see on his face that he does not support it and does not believe in it. He is just desperately hoping, in the words of the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for
“one or two symbolic flights off before the next election”,
even if everyone ends up being sent back again, even if the whole thing collapses after that and even if the cost is a total fortune, because the Prime Minister is not planning to tell anyone before the election what the total costs are. In the end, the only deterrence that the Prime Minister believes in is deterring his Back Benchers from getting rid of him. It is weak, weak, weak, and the taxpayer is paying the price.
It is a totally farcical situation: a Prime Minister who does not think it is a deterrent, a Home Secretary who thinks it is “batshit”, a former Home Secretary who says it will not work, a former Immigration Minister who says it does not do the job and everyone who thinks that what we have is an incredibly expensive sham with the taxpayer being conned. If Ministers disagree with everything that I just said describing their plans, what is there to hide? Tell us the facts, and show us where all of that is wrong.

Alistair Carmichael: We do know a few facts here, and one of the facts we know is that the scheme has been in the making for 18 months. In that 18 months, the money that has been spent on it would have employed 6,000 caseworkers in the Home Office. Might that not have been a better way of proceeding?

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Member is right. There are many ways in which the hundreds of millions of pounds spent could alternatively have been invested. It is probably roughly equivalent to about a third of the budget of the National Crime Agency, for example, to take action on criminal gangs.
The right hon. Member is right, and we do know some figures on the costs of the Rwanda scheme. We know that Ministers wrote a cheque for £120 million in April 2022, and then there was another £20 million in summer 2022. They then did not want to tell us anything more at all. It was only thanks to the Rwandan Government and the information that they provided to the International Monetary Fund that the Home Office has been forced to give us a bit more information. Against Ministers’ will, we know that they have written another cheque for £100 million during 2023, and they promised another £50 million in spring this year, in just a few months’ time.
We have £290 million of cheques to Rwanda for no asylum seekers to be sent, £290 million to send more Home Secretaries than asylum seekers, nearly £100 million per Home Secretary trip, and there is more. The permanent secretary has admitted that there is a further payment planned for 2025 and another one for 2026, all independent  of whether any asylum seekers are ever sent. I asked the Home Secretary in December whether in fact those payments were also £50 million each; he said that he was happy to confirm that. The following morning, it was put to him in media interviews that the Government were now spending £400 million on Rwanda, and he did not deny it. So we can only conclude that the sums are indeed nearer £400 million. Independent of what happens with this law, the plans and the flights, £400 million of cheques are being written to Rwanda when that could have been invested in tackling criminal gangs and could have been invested in making a difference. If it is not £400 million, again, Ministers should tell us what the actual figures are.

Hywel Williams: The right hon. Lady is making a persuasive case, with which I entirely agree. But does the Labour party have any moral or ethical opposition to processing in third countries?

Yvette Cooper: We already have, and have had for a long time, processing in other countries within the UK asylum system. For example, the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which I think both he and I support, means processing cases in other countries. It is also what happened for the Hong Kong scheme.
We know that the cost is now £400 million, and we can conclude that it is possibly considerably more. According to the treaty, there are additional per-person costs—if anyone is actually sent—to cover asylum processing, to cover accommodation costs for five years, and to cover three meals a day for five years. That is in the treaty, but the Government will not tell us how much all that adds up to. We know from the impact assessment for the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that the Home Office was prepared to say that the average cost of sending someone to a theoretical third country would be £169,000—a remarkable level of precision for a figure picked out of thin air. However, it will not have chosen a figure for that assessment that was higher than the Rwanda costs, because it will not assume that it would have to pay for three meals a day for five years everywhere. That suggests that the actual figure per person is higher. Maybe nearer £200,000 per person? Again, if that is wrong, Ministers should tell us.
Otherwise, it suggests that if the Home Office manages to sort out its legal wrangles and get flights off the ground, another whopping bill is coming. Suppose the Home Office manages to send 100 people to Rwanda this year, which is what the Court of Appeal said was Rwanda’s capacity. Well, that means another £20 million cheque. If that is wrong, again, tell us the additional per-person costs.
Ministers say that they cannot possibly tell us any of these things because it is somehow commercially confidential. What a load of total nonsense. This is not a contract with a company with shareholders and intellectual property rights and competitors who will not bid if they think all their cost details will be scrutinised by other companies; this is an agreement with a sovereign state. If the Kigali Government choose to contract out housing to a private provider, that might have some commercial considerations, but that is a matter for them, not for us. Ministers claim that it will somehow  make it harder to agree deals. Again, they are making up these arguments because they are embarrassed and do not want to reveal the figures.
In other areas, the Government have told us the facts. In March 2023, the Prime Minister announced £476 million over three years for the agreement with France. It was set out in detail, with £124 million in 2023-24, £168 million in 2024-25 and £184 million in 2025-26. We know what the future spending will be on that agreement with France, so why not tell us the future spending agreed with Rwanda? The work with France, which we support, covers coastal patrols, drones and technology. It needs to be properly scrutinised to ensure that we are getting value for money, but we support working with the French police along the coast to prevent dangerous boat crossings and to protect our border security. We want to go further, working with other countries to tackle the criminal gangs, but why publish those details in full and set them out several years in advance for France and not for Rwanda? The Government cannot claim that it is because they might be trying to negotiate agreements with other countries compared to Rwanda and not with France. They might have to negotiate future agreements with Belgium, the Dutch police and other Governments, given that the borders inspectorate has pointed out that many of the smuggler routes pass through there, but that is not preventing the Government being public about the facts on the France scheme. It is time that the Government gave us the facts that Parliament would normally be entitled to, and that the public and, crucially, the taxpayer should be entitled to. How much of taxpayers’ money have they promised to Rwanda for a scheme that is failing?
The motion sets out some of the facts that we want: payments made or scheduled, including the fourth and fifth year figures; the per person costs; the memorandum of understanding that sets out the money agreement; and the agreement between the Home Office and the Treasury while the Prime Minister was Chancellor on costs and numbers, so that everyone has the chance to see what doubts the Prime Minister had, rather than their being hidden away from the taxpayer. We are holding this Opposition Day debate to give the Government the chance to give us the proper figures, which cross-party Select Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Liaison Committee have been asking for.
The Government also claim that none of that matters because the costs will be outweighed by the savings on asylum hotels, but I must break it to them that all this money for Rwanda is in addition to asylum hotels. It has been reported this week that the Prime Minister told the Home Office to keep open some asylum hotels. We know their plans for bases and barges have been unravelling. One hundred people were quietly moved out of Wethersfield in the Home Secretary’s constituency and moved into hotels. Plans to put people into Catterick, in the Prime Minister’s constituency, have now been dropped. It is costing more to keep people on the Bibby Stockholm than it is in hotels. It is total chaos and a total mess, which is why there are 20% more people in asylum hotels than there were a year ago when the Prime Minister promised to end them. Rwanda does not change any of that. In fact, their migration legislation, supposedly to enable Rwanda, is likely to make the backlog and the costs worse.

Seema Malhotra: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lack of clarity over the Rwanda plan and its cost is happening at a time when the Tories have weakened our border security and broken the asylum system? For six years we have had criminal smuggler gangs continuing to take over the channel, while Home Office asylum decision making has collapsed. It is incredibly important that we get control of our borders and our systems at the Home Office, and it is vital that that transparency comes to Parliament.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is completely right. Over the last five years, the Conservatives have let criminal gangs take hold along our borders, along the channel. That is undermining our border security. We should be strengthening our border security and fixing the asylum chaos that has built up over the last few years. That includes going after the criminal gangs and stronger border security measures.
The Court of Appeal says that the Rwanda scheme capacity will be only about 100 people. Rwanda’s asylum system is used to deciding only about 100 cases a year, and the Immigration Minister has admitted that the likely number of people is only in the hundreds. The current backlog is over 100,000 people, and last year over 90,000 people applied for asylum in the UK. We have a policy that will likely cover less than 1% of those arriving in the UK, at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds that the Government will not come clean about. That raises another important question.

James Daly: rose—

Yasmin Qureshi: rose—

Yvette Cooper: Before I get to that important question, I will give way briefly to both hon. Members in turn.

James Daly: Will Labour’s policy, or proposed policy, for addressing border security be to allow offshore processing claims in Turkey?

Yvette Cooper: In theory, someone who was in Turkey and applied for the Homes for Ukraine scheme would be processed while in Turkey. However, it is not clear what the Government are proposing, or what the hon. Member is proposing, because nothing has been proposed by the Government. Labour’s proposal is to go after the criminal gangs through a new cross-border unit, with stronger security powers, and a new security agreement with other European countries, and to stop the boats before they reach the French coast by going after the supply chain of the criminal gangs. Under the Conservatives there has been a 30% drop in the number of people smuggling convictions, which shows that they are not taking action on the smuggler gangs but instead have let them take hold, and we will tackle that.

Yasmin Qureshi: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Are not the problems with the Rwanda scheme compounded by the fact that it means we have to take people from Rwanda as well? What benefit do we get?

Yvette Cooper: That is an interesting point. It is true that the Rwanda treaty that has been agreed states that first the United Kingdom will need to take some refugees from Rwanda, but it does not specify who will pay for  those refugees. We know that people who are transferred to Rwanda will be paid for by the UK taxpayer, and also that people can be returned if, for example, they commit serious crimes in Rwanda, which will mean that, effectively, foreign national offenders are being returned. There is a question mark over that as well. We assume from the lack of information that the UK taxpayer will also pay those costs, but again, if the position is different it would be helpful to know about it. The Minister has the opportunity to respond by giving us details of all the costs.
This raises another important question to which we have not yet received answers. Under the suspended provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which the Prime Minister often boasts about as if they were law but which, in fact, have never been enacted, everyone who arrived in the country after July 2023 should be detained and removed to a third country. The Home Office has suggested that that provision will be enacted once the flights to Rwanda start, but more than 33,000 cases—probably involving more than 40,000 people—are already on the list. Are Ministers really saying that all those 40,000 people will be sent to Rwanda this year, even if the Government manage to get the flights off the ground? Given the rate at which they are talking of sending people to Rwanda, it will take more than 100 years to clear the backlog—and presumably all those people will be in hotel accommodation in the meantime, paid for by the UK taxpayer.
Will the Minister tell us what the actual plan is? Are the Government planning to implement the Illegal Migration Act if the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is passed and to push up the backlog for perhaps a century, or are they in fact planning an amnesty in respect of the Act for tens of thousands of people? They have not admitted such a plan to their Back Benchers, and they certainly do not admit it in the social media graphics they send out.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that instead of spending this vast amount of money on a failed Rwanda scheme, Britain and the other European Governments ought to be thinking about the numbers of people, many from Afghanistan, who are leading a marginal existence, in desperate poverty and freezing to death, on the streets of Calais and other cities around Europe? They are the victims of human rights violations and war all around the world. Should we not be thinking about them and helping them rather than pouring money into the Rwandan Government, which has achieved absolutely nothing?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend has made an important point about, in particular, the issues relating to Afghanistan, where we know there has been huge persecution by the Taliban. We also know that there are people who helped our armed forces and, effectively, worked for the UK Government in Afghanistan, and as a result have been targeted by the Taliban. The Afghan resettlement scheme set up by the Home Office has had all kinds of problems. It is important that there are proper reforms to the resettlement schemes to make sure that they are effective, and that they prevent people being exploited by people traffickers and people smugglers. That is why it is so important to take action to stop these dangerous boat crossings, which are putting lives at risk and undermining our border security, and on  which the criminal gangs have made profits of probably £0.5 billion over the last few years as a result of being able to take hold along the channel.

Tim Loughton: The right hon. Lady mentioned 34,000 cases so far since the printing of the Illegal Migration Bill. Of those cases, if people are found to have no credible case for asylum to stay in the United Kingdom, and if they come from countries to which it is virtually practically impossible to return them, what would she do with them?

Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Member will know, we should be returning people who do not have a foundation in persecution or conflict, who do not have a well-founded asylum claim. They should be being returned to their own country. But he will also know that there has been a 50% drop in the returns of failed asylum seekers since 2010—a huge drop. We should be working with a new returns and enforcement unit, with proper staffing in place, to reverse that drop. He will also be aware, because it was in evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee, where he has worked immensely hard over many years, and because he takes these issues very seriously, that only 5% of those who arrived from Albania—including on small boats—over the past few years have been returned to Albania. Although we support the Albania agreement, it is in fact being used predominantly to return historic cases, and has not been used for the kinds of cases he is talking about, in which decisions should be fast-tracked and people should be being returned quickly.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way again, but she has answered a question that I did not ask. I was referring not to Albanians but to people from countries that she knows it is practically impossible to return them to. The Iranian Government will not let them off the plane. Eritreans would put them in jail and say they would be appealed on human rights. What would her party, in government, do with those people who had come here illegally from such countries, with no basis on which they could stay and no way of negotiating returns agreements with countries like Iran?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member will know that people from countries such as Eritrea and Iran are very often granted asylum, and will not be sent to Rwanda under his Government’s policy because Rwanda will only be able to take a hundred or a couple of hundred people a year, at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds. That is the core dishonesty and the failure at the heart of the Government’s programme—they are promising people that they will make huge changes to the existing system, but they are not at all. Instead, if anything, all they will do is stack people up in asylum hotels for even longer than the taxpayer is funding them, for a bill, currently, of £8 million a day—up from £6 million a day.
The Prime Minister declared the asylum backlog cleared—that is what he said—which is taking the country for fools. There are 99,000 cases in the backlog. That is probably over 120,000 people, and all the Home Office have tried to do is clear the cases before July 2022—cases that are already more than 18 months old. Those cases should not be in the system by now anyway. Any  properly functioning system would have cleared cases that were more than 18 months old, but that is the scale of Tory chaos. Why are they just trying to catch up with themselves, clearing those very old cases? Of course, the backlog since July 2022 has doubled. Even their weak, limited target to clear the so-called “legacy backlog” has failed, with 4,500 cases not cleared and 35,000 cases simply withdrawn. We want the facts about that. What has happened to those 35,000 cases?
We know from the evidence to the Select Committee in November that as of November, the Home Office had no idea where 17,000 of those claimants were. How many of the 35,000 does the Home Office know to have left the country? How many of them does it know to be deceased or to be duplicate cases? And how many are probably still here? They might be working illegally, they might have restarted their asylum application and gone back to the beginning of the system, or they might be destitute on the streets. Whatever has happened to them, they are still here and the Home Office does not have a clue. Can the Minister give us a breakdown of the 35,000 cases? Is enforcement action taken if those people should not be here? It not, this all looks like more smoke and mirrors from a dodgy salesman Prime Minister.
We support some of the Government’s measures relating to France, and we support the agreement with Albania. We want to see more proper international co-operation like that, and we should be on steroids in tackling the criminal gangs.

Meg Hillier: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will give way one more time. I need to finish so that others can speak.

Meg Hillier: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. She will recall that at the end of the last Labour Government, there were returns at the rate of one every eight minutes. Does that not demonstrate that, where there is a will, we can tackle those who should not be in the country and welcome those who should?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right, which is why Labour will set up a new returns unit with 1,000 staff to do returns and enforcement—to actually get returns agreements in place, to go through individual cases and to reverse the 50% drop in returns since 2010.
Instead of the Rwanda scheme, as part of our five-point plan to strengthen border security and to fix the Tories’ asylum chaos we would use the money to fund proper action to go after the criminal gangs. We would have new cross-border police with stronger powers, similar to counter-terror powers. We would have new security agreements with Europol and other countries to stop the boats reaching the French coast in the first place. We would properly clear the backlog, ending hotel use; we would have a major returns and enforcement unit, alongside reform to resettlement routes, so that the UK continues to do our bit to help those fleeing conflict and persecution and so that we prevent people from being exploited by criminal gangs; and we would have proper international co-operation and proper plans to deal  with the problems at source by providing in-region support to refugees, which is something this Government have repeatedly cut back.
We believe in strong border security and a properly controlled and managed asylum system, so that the UK does its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict, as we have always done, and so that those with no right to be here are swiftly returned. Under the Tories, we have none of those things. We just have chaos. We just have a con.
Five broken promises from a failing Prime Minister. He promised to clear the backlog—it is still 100,000. He promised to stop the boats—last year saw the second-highest number of crossings on record. He promised to end hotel use—it went up, not down. He promised to return everyone—returns are down 50%. He promised to pass a new law and, to be fair, he did pass a new law—he just did not implement it.
That is the problem with this Prime Minister: shiny graphics but shoddy gimmicks; wide-eyed promises but never delivery. The Tories all know it, which is why they should all be calling for the same facts as us, because those facts will expose what is really going on in this Government—the con on everyone. They should stop letting their Front Benchers play smoke and mirrors. They should be asking for the figures. The House should get those figures, as they are the figures we need. That is what this Humble Address should deliver.

Tom Pursglove: The Opposition may not believe this, but I am grateful to them for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue that undoubtedly matters to people across the country. I am grateful because this debate provides me with the opportunity to highlight the fact that this Government have a credible plan to tackle illegal migration.
Some things never change. When I moved to the Department for Work and Pensions in October 2022, the Labour party had no credible plan on illegal migration. And when I returned to the Home Office 14 months later, guess what? There is still no credible plan. Some things never change, and it is the same old Labour ignoring the British people’s priorities and trying to glide to power under the radar without saying anything credible about these issues. By contrast, we have a credible plan, we are working through that plan and it is delivering results.
We should not see one aspect—one plank—of that plan in isolation; it needs to be seen in a joined-up way. Small boat arrivals to the UK were down by a third last year. Opposition Members may not want to hear that, but it reflects the fact that the plan and the earlier steps that were taken are working. It also bucked the trend across Europe, where illegal migration had risen. Our European partners are following our lead, with Italy, Germany, Austria and others all exploring models similar to ours.
The Government met their target of eliminating the legacy asylum backlog and there is improved efficiency across the system. We will take forward that learning as we set about dealing with the outstanding cases. The use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers is costing the taxpayer more than £8 million each day and one thing is  for sure: if we were to take the do-nothing approach about the flow of cases into the system, which is precisely what the shadow Home Secretary’s policy would result in, all we would see is ballooning costs. That would be unfair and unsustainable, which is why we have taken concrete steps to return hotels to their rightful uses, with 50 due to be handed back to the community this month.

Florence Eshalomi: I hope the Minister has had an opportunity to visit some of these hotels. This is about not just the costs, which are increasing, but the situation and dire conditions for people waiting for their claims to be assessed. We are talking about families living in rooms with no access to food and no space for their children to learn—it is not a nice environment for people who just want their claims to be assessed. Will the Minister please get to grips with that?

Tom Pursglove: It is absolutely right that the Government prioritise closing hotels. That is a policy we have set and are delivering against. [Interruption.] Labour Members keep saying it is going up, but what we are seeing is hotels being closed. That is happening week on week, and we will continue to sustain that process.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Tom Pursglove: I will gladly give way to the shadow Home Secretary, as perhaps she will have a credible policy to put to the House.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Minister confirm that the latest figures show that the number of people in asylum hotels is 20% higher than it was last December, when the Prime Minister promised to end asylum hotel use, and that the costs have gone up from £6 million a day when the Prime Minister complained about this last December to more than £8 million a day, as the Minister just said today?

Tom Pursglove: The fact is that we are closing asylum hotels and it is absolutely the right strategy to pursue. I regularly hear colleagues across this House complain about hotels being open in their constituencies. I want to get on and close those hotels, as do my colleagues, and that is precisely what we will do. It is not sustainable just to continue with the status quo, in the way that the right hon. Lady advocates, in respect of the flow of people into the system. We must not forget that all those individuals making perilous crossings of the channel, facilitated by evil criminal gangs, are coming from a fundamentally safe country. That is why, through our multifaceted approach to this issue, we will get to grips with it, because we are attacking illegal migration at every stage, through work both at home and abroad.

Paul Bristow: The Minister may be aware that the Great Northern Hotel, once the flagship hotel for Peterborough, was being used as asylum accommodation, but a Peterborough-based campaign means that it has been stood down and now plans to be part—or could be part—of the £70 million regeneration package in the station quarter. Is he surprised to learn that Labour councillors in Peterborough oppose that and want the Great Northern Hotel to remain migrant hostel asylum accommodation?

Tom Pursglove: Very few things surprise me about those in the Labour party. The things they say and do do not always match the rhetoric of their Front Benchers. Their policies—or lack of—on this matter speak for themselves. My hon. Friend was an ardent advocate for getting that hotel closed, and I am grateful for the representations he made. The Government will continue with the mission we are on, which is to get this issue under control, close the hotels and make sure that our borders and migration system is sustainable for the future.

Bob Stewart: This is called a plan, but actually it is a strategy. The strategy is to dissuade and deter people from getting in boats and crossing the channel at huge risk. The plan may cost, but the implications are far bigger than just sending people to Rwanda.

Tom Pursglove: My right hon. Friend recognises that the plan is one part of the overarching strategy we are taking forward to address the issue. Let us not forget that if we had taken the advice of Members on the Opposition Benches, who have voted against so many of the measures we have put in place to try to address the issue, we would not have seen crossings down by a third, Albanian arrivals dropping by 90% or hotels being closed. It is fortunate that we did not take their advice—I dread to think what the situation would be had we done so.

Meg Hillier: rose—

Clive Efford: The Minister says he has a plan, but this is the third plan set out during the last two years: the Illegal Migration Act 2023 has not worked, we were told the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would stop the boats, and now we have the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. We are told that the Bill has been watered down because the Rwandans themselves want to comply with the international law and conventions that the Tories wanted to breach. How is Rwanda dictating our immigration policy consistent with the Government’s claim to be taking back control of our borders?

Tom Pursglove: It is rather ironic to hear from Opposition Members on this subject. I well remember the shadow Home Secretary being one of the leading lights of the effort to try to keep us in the European Union, and I know where her instincts lie on these issues. She was very happy to continue with the free movement of people and willing to have that open-door border approach. The hon. Gentleman cited rhetoric from the referendum campaign, but he too has voted against every single measure that we have tried to take forward to make progress on this. [Interruption.] The good news for him is that there is an opportunity to put all that right and to be in the Lobby next week when we consider the Bill, to make sure we can get on and operationalise the plan. The Opposition keep saying it is waste of money but they could get behind the Bill in the Lobby and help to operationalise it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Justin Madders: The Minister says that hotels are closing, but in my constituency people are moving from hotels to houses in multiple occupation. How is that dealing with the issue rather than just moving it around?

Tom Pursglove: The policy platform that the hon. Gentleman is standing on would do absolutely nothing to reduce the flow of people coming illegally to this country, all of whom are leaving safe countries in order to make perilous journeys across the channel, with all the risk to human life that that presents.

Katherine Fletcher: Let us look at the issue over a 20-year time span. Under the Blair Government, people were trying to come here illegally under lorries; we did a load of work, we put in X-ray scanners and we stopped that criminal trade. They are now trying to come by boat, so we are putting the work in and trying to stop that. Does the Minister agree that Labour did not solve the original problem and has no plans to solve the current one?

Tom Pursglove: I agree with my hon. Friend on both fronts. It is important to recognise that this is one of biggest issues of our time. The British people want it dealt with once and for all, and so do this Government. Our position is clear. That is why we have put in place one of the most comprehensive plans for tackling illegal migration anywhere in the world, and it is why this endeavour is, and will remain, a priority for myself, my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, and the Home Office more generally.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tom Pursglove: I will give way to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), but I need to make some progress.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister keeps citing the British people. Are not most people in this country looking at what has happened on this vital question since 2010—over all the years for which this Government have been in power—and seeing that the situation has only got worse and that no policy has really worked? Is the Minister not ashamed of that fact?

Tom Pursglove: It is worth the hon. Gentleman reflecting on the fact that the small boats phenomenon was not an issue in 2010. He is yet another Labour Member who has voted repeatedly against the various efforts we have sought to make that have started to deliver the progress that I believe the British people want to see. The instincts of my constituents, and no doubt of his constituents, lend themselves to getting on and getting to grips with the issue. That is a fact, and the record speaks to that fact. We will continue not to take the advice of those who would do very little, if anything, to address this issue, and we will get on with delivering on this plan.
The plan recognises that illegal migration is a highly complex challenge, requiring innovative solutions. In the Rwanda partnership, we have just such a solution. We are sending the crystal clear message to those thinking about crossing the channel to get to the UK that they will not be able to stay. Let us not forget that, as I have said repeatedly, all those people are leaving what are fundamentally safe countries to make those crossings, which have been organised by criminal fraternities.
Of course it is true that the creation and implementation of a novel approach such as this comes with an expected cost. To date, £240 million has been paid to Rwanda,  and those figures have been provided to Parliament. The funding arrangement is boosting the economy of Rwanda, which will benefit both host communities and those relocated there, and will go to areas such as agriculture, jobs and infrastructure. We have also provided an up-front credit to pay for start-up costs in advance of flights.
Although we do not agree with all of the Supreme Court’s conclusions, we respect the Court. Last month, the Home Secretary signed a new internationally legally binding treaty to address the Supreme Court’s conclusions. Crucially, the treaty removes the risk of refoulement and provides for an excellent standard of care for all those relocated. Both countries’ adherence to their obligations will be robustly monitored. The High Court and the Court of Appeal have already confirmed that the principle of the partnership—to remove those with no right to be here to a safe third country—is lawful and compliant with the refugee convention.

Meg Hillier: rose—

Tom Pursglove: I will gladly give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

Meg Hillier: I thank the Minister for finally giving way to me. He skipped over the costs of the Rwanda scheme. Yes, we know about the £240 million and the £50 million next year, but only because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, it was leaked—it emerged from the Rwandan Government. That is being investigated. Can he not just share with the House the total cost of the scheme? There is no reason not to do so. It is a flagship scheme of the Government. The Minister, from what he has said, is clearly proud of it, so why can he not share with us the total cost committed in the treaty?

Tom Pursglove: It is slightly uncharacteristic of the hon. Lady to be mean-spirited. It is fair to say that we are having a good debate, and both Front Benchers have taken many interventions. The Government have provided those costings to Parliament, and we will continue to report the costs in the annual report and accounts in a way that is perfectly normal, perfectly reasonable and perfectly respectable.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Minister give way?

Tom Pursglove: I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary just one last time, as I have been very generous. I am also conscious that there are many Members who wish to speak.

Yvette Cooper: The Minister has been generous. Given that he has published the future costs of the agreement with France, why is he still refusing to publish years 4 and 5 of the Rwanda agreement? We know how much will be paid in ‘24, ‘25 and ‘26 for France. Why not tell us the same figures for Rwanda? The taxpayer is entitled to know.

Tom Pursglove: That information will be provided in the usual manner—through the annual report and accounts. The right hon. Lady will recognise that, within that, there are elements such as the number and circumstances  of individuals who will be relocated, and we will publish those costs. That transparency will come as part of the annual report and accounts, as she would expect.
We have touched in this debate on commercial sensitivity and the ongoing relationships with our partners. The courts acknowledge that Rwanda entered the partnership in good faith, and the mechanisms that we have introduced through the treaty will provide cast-iron guarantees to ensure the welfare of all those relocated. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which is the toughest immigration legislation ever introduced in Parliament, will enable Parliament to confirm that Rwanda is safe. There will be very limited, specific circumstances under which someone can claim that Rwanda is unsafe for them in their exceptional circumstances. If a foreign court chooses to interfere, we will do whatever it takes to get flights off the ground. We will debate all of that again next week.
Rwanda is a beacon of Africa, a country full of potential and promise that stands ready to welcome people into its communities. Rwanda cares deeply about providing humanitarian protection. It is incorrect and, frankly, offensive to reduce Rwanda’s interest in this policy to a financial incentive. Claims like that are often made by people who have never been and who choose to ignore the brilliant work that Rwanda does with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide sanctuary to many people in the spirit of partnership. That should be celebrated and welcomed, not traduced.
To be clear, the Government of Rwanda did not ask for money to sign the treaty, nor did we offer any. That said, doing nothing is not a free option. It is right that there is additional funding to reflect the future costs. The total cost of the partnership will depend on the number of people relocated, the timing of when it occurs and the outcomes of individual cases. Rwanda has the capacity to deliver on this uncapped partnership, and we have been working with it to build its capacity over the past year. As I say, it already hosts 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers working with the UNHCR and other partners.
We must stop the boats and save lives. The moral imperative could not be clearer. Ensuring that those who arrive in the UK through unnecessary, illegal and dangerous means cannot stay here should prove a deterrent to others who may try to do the same thing. We need to stop criminal gangs profiting from this through decisive action. We know deterrents work. We have seen that clearly demonstrated through the returns agreement with Albania. That strong deterrent has seen us return 5,000 Albanians in 2023 alone and Albanian arrivals fall by 90%.
We want every people smuggler to know that the UK is off limits and that we will not tolerate any further loss of life. Nor will we accept the strain that high levels of illegal migration place on our communities and public services. To the criminal gangs profiting from misery, we say, “Your despicable business model will no longer be viable.” We remain firmly committed to getting flights to Rwanda off the ground as soon as possible. We want the British people to know that we are putting them and their interests first. We will not be deterred. We accept and embrace the challenge. Unlike Labour,  we have a credible plan, are working through it and are making progress. By sticking the course, we can and will stop the boats.

Roger Gale: Some 14 hon. Members seek to take part in the debate. We have to go into the wind-ups at about 6.40 pm. By my miserable maths, that means I need to put an immediate time limit of five minutes on speeches after the SNP spokesman. I may have to bring that down—we will see how we go.

Alison Thewliss: I would like to put on the record yet again that the SNP wholeheartedly opposes the principle of the Rwanda plan, of offshoring people as if they were some kind of tiresome trash that the UK does not want to deal with—a plan that amounts simply to state-sponsored people trafficking. It is not just about the money, as Labour set out in its motion today, as egregious and obscene a waste of money as this is; it is about how we treat our fellow human beings. These are people who have experienced torture, have seen their families murdered and are running from horrors that we are fortunate never to have known. They deserve much better than being yeeted to Rwanda, a country that the Supreme Court has found is both unsafe and without the administrative capacity to take on the sensitive role the UK Government are putting on it.
According to the latest UNHCR data, the majority of those who flee—69%—stay in neighbouring countries. Low and middle-income countries host 75% of the world’s refugees and other people in need of international protection. Those who do make it to our shores more often than not already have ties to the UK—of family, language or the long legacy of war and empire. UK Ministers often make the wild assertion that the 110 million displaced people around the world are somehow all making their way to Dover and that the Rwanda plan is some kind of deterrent. That is not an assertion based in reality.

Luke Evans: Will the hon. Member give way?

Alison Thewliss: I would like to make some progress because, as Mr Deputy Speaker said, we are quite short of time.
To take Afghanistan as example, 6 million Afghans have been classed by UNHCR as refugees, of whom 91% have stayed in neighbouring countries, with 3.5 million in Iran and just over 2 million in Pakistan. There are 239,600 in Germany, 71,200 in France and just 12,200 in the UK—a mere 0.2% of the total.

Luke Evans: Given that there are 100 million people displaced, if Scotland was an independent country, how many people would it take in?

Alison Thewliss: I have just made the point that, of those 110 million people, a very tiny proportion actually come here. I also point out to the hon. Member that putting a specific numbered cap on things has not worked either. I remember the Government saying they were going to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, and that has not worked out. So numbers  are not worth speaking about in this debate in the way he thinks they are. That is a spurious argument and he should learn to look much harder at the issue, rather than putting a very basic interpretation on it.
The hon. Gentleman ought to know that Afghans have consistently made up a very high proportion of the people coming across the channel in small boats. As I have pointed out repeatedly in this place to various Ministers at various times, that is a sign of the failure of the supposed safe and legal routes they have set up. For every Afghan who has arrived on a resettlement scheme, around 90 have arrived by small boat. Just imagine if the UK Government schemes were not so riddled with incompetence. No Afghan would need to risk setting foot on a dinghy, and no one would need to sell everything they own, be exploited, beg, borrow and steal, and be bonded in debt to people smugglers if the Government had schemes that worked.
It bears repeating that the only way for people to claim asylum is to get themselves to the UK. They cannot claim in an embassy overseas, and airlines and ferries will not board them if they do not have the requisite visa to get here. Small boats are very much a last resort, not an easy option, and their use has increased as the routes via lorries and other means have become more difficult.
Ministers talk about the expense of the asylum system, but that has come about largely as a result of their own incompetent administration. They have downgraded roles in asylum casework and created a work culture so toxic that employees do not stay, with a lack of expertise and unmanageable caseloads. The issues with the backlog are entirely of their own making, and they deserve no brownie points at all for attempting to fix what they broke. We know that the Home Office’s new asylum backlog stands just shy of 100,000 people who still require to have their cases processed. I see those folk at my surgeries every week, and they certainly do not perceive much of an improvement from the Home Office, despite the Minister’s spin.
Ministers appear to have massaged the figures to make the legacy backlog reduce from 92,000 to just under 5,000, but a cynic might wonder why around a third of those backlog cases are not actually decisions made, but withdrawals. Free Movement has said:
“The heavy use of withdrawals to reduce the number of pending applications does make it look as though the backlog clearance was an exercise in number management more than anything else.”
Ministers cannot tell us where those 30,000 people are within the system, and it is also worth noting that the first-tier immigration tribunal has seen a 20% increase in outstanding appeals, which now stand at 31,000.
I also note the further cost to other parts of the immigration system due to the political focus on dealing with the backlog. For example, I have heard increasing instances of international student visas not being processed in time for the start of term, with people having to defer their studies because they have missed so much of their course that they cannot turn up and study as they had planned to.
For those who recall my mention in the previous debate of a Sudanese constituent whose wife has been shot in the leg while waiting a year and a half for a  family reunion application, I wrote to the Home Secretary on the subject and finally received a letter from a civil servant saying there are
“considerable delays in family reunion decision making at this time”
and that
“applications are being considered outside of the 60 working day service standard”.
In fact, 60 working days would have been quite good for that woman, because had her application been processed in time at the time, she would have been out of Sudan before the current conflict broke out. Now she waits in a very unsafe situation for a Minister to make progress on this matter. How long must she and others wait?
The former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), even admitted on TV in August that processing asylum claims quickly
“just encourages more people to come”.
Of course he has never presented evidence to back up that assertion. If delays of several years are a feature, not a bug, Home Office Ministers are on shaky ground when they girn about the cost of keeping asylum seekers in hotels. They have set the system up to work in this way.
Quite aside from the eye-watering £8 million a day—over £3 billion a year—that it costs to house asylum seekers in inadequate hotel accommodation, there is a human cost to keeping people in limbo. The asylum seekers I listen to want to be able to work, contribute and rebuild their lives. They are skilled and talented people with a lot to give to their communities, and they are grateful for the opportunity, but as long as they are kept out of the labour market and prevented from working, they lose their skills and confidence, and their mental health deteriorates. I have seen far too many people at my advice surgeries who cannot understand a system that treats them with such disdain.
A recent Scottish Government paper draws on analysis from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which suggests that granting people who are seeking asylum in Scotland the right to work would add £30 million per year on average to the Scottish economy if it were granted immediately on arrival, or £16 million per year if it were granted after a six-month waiting period—tax revenues increase and support costs are reduced. Only a Government so wedded to a toxic ideology would refuse to accept such a logical position.
It is stranger still that that persists because, as we in this place know, all policies come through the Treasury. The Prime Minister himself apparently voiced concerns regarding the cost of the Rwanda policy during his time as Chancellor. It was reported that he wished
“to pursue smaller volumes initially, 500 instead of 1,500”
in the first year of the scheme, and
“3,000 instead of 5,000 in years two and three”.
The papers, seen by the BBC, also suggested that he was
“reluctant to fund so-called ‘Greek-style reception centres’, sites where migrants could be housed, rather than being put up in hotels which were said to be costing £3.5m a day at that point, the documents suggest. They say, the ‘Chancellor is refusing to fund any non-detained accommodation, eg Greek-style reception centres, because hotels are cheaper’.”
We can see that clearly from the example of the Bibby Stockholm, which, at over £22 million, is more expensive per night than putting people in hotels. Neither the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), nor the director general for migration and borders at the Home Office could vouch for the value for money of the vessel or provide comparative figures when they came to the Home Affairs Committee in December. The private companies that provide such accommodation—Mears, Serco, Clearsprings, Corporate Travel Management and the rest—are raking it in. Misery is lucrative.
Home Office Ministers often talk up the nebulous concept of deterrence, but oddly enough, they provide little evidence to back it up. We know from those papers seen by the BBC that the then Chancellor did not believe that the deterrent would work, but now that he is Prime Minister, he will chuck any amount of money into the same vague concept. The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration, the hon. and learned Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), said that the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill was the toughest Bill ever—well, since the last one, and the one before that, neither of which have worked, and some of which has not been implemented.
Free Movement has published a useful graph indicating that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and Illegal Migration Act 2023 have not had any deterrent effect on the figures. There is no evidence to suggest that the new Rwanda legislation will be any different. No wonder the Home Secretary is reported to have called it “batshit”. It will not even work; we know that because the Home Office has earmarked at least £700 million to manage small boats until 2030, which it would not do if it expected the boats to stop coming—it is ludicrous.
As well as being illegal and immoral, the Rwanda scheme is eye-wateringly expensive. The UK Government’s own figures suggest that removing each individual to Rwanda would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK. If the Government were to send every asylum seeker who arrived last year, it would cost £7.7 billion. Do Conservative Members truly believe that that is a price worth paying, particularly when people are struggling to feed themselves during a cost of living crisis?
Given the absurd costs, the Home Office has been understandably reticent to provide more details of the scheme. Permanent secretary Sir Matthew Rycroft initially provided details of the £140 million paid—£120 million through an economic transformation and integration fund, and a separate £20 million to cover initial set-up—but told the Home Affairs Committee that he could not provide details of further payments as that was “commercially sensitive” information and would only be released in the annual report and accounts each year. He was then forced into disclosing further costs in a letter to the Public Accounts Committee, in which he outlined that a further £100 million was paid to Rwanda in April last year, with another payment of £50 million due this year.
During the debate on the Rwanda Bill, the Home Secretary confirmed that the deal with Rwanda also included further payments of £50 million in 2025 and £50 million in 2026, bringing the total cost of the scheme to nearly £400 million without a single asylum seeker having been sent there. That is a cost of about £130 million per Home Secretary who has been to Rwanda.
A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that as of last month, the UK Government have spent £2.1 million defending the scheme in the courts. With new legal challenges to the Bill and the treaty, more costs to the taxpayer are surely yet to come. All the time, while this cruel posturing continues, the number of people waiting for asylum decisions grows, safe and legal routes have not emerged and have been closed down, and Home Office staff are left without the resources they need. All in all, it is an expensive distraction from the dull and boring work of governing well.
As it is Labour’s debate, I want to focus briefly on its plans. As the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) highlighted in his question, the shadow Home Secretary did not rule out offshoring people should Labour be in government, so I ask the Labour party whether it is the cost of offshoring that it objects to, or the principle. I was particularly interested in the papers released by the National Archives over Christmas, including the paper presented by Jonathan Powell to the Blair Government entitled “Asylum: The Nuclear Option”, which suggested interning people on Mull or the Falkland Islands and deporting people to Turkey and Kenya. When officials from the Home Office warned that those measures would fall foul of the UK’s international obligations to refugees, the Prime Minister’s handwritten note read
“Just return them. This is precisely the point. We must not allow the ECHR to stop us dealing with it.”
Twenty years on, that is chillingly reminiscent of the current Conservative Government.
Back in 2003-4, Labour was also trying to find a way of offshoring people to Tanzania, and it has been reported that it has recently been consulting with the architects of that plan. If Labour still plans to offshore people, I ask how many, on what terms, and at what cost? How can it possibly be cost-effective to send people halfway around the world, only to bring them back if their case is successful? When Full Fact asked Lord Blunkett about those historic plans, he said that he had
“looked at a system for processing appeals for failed asylum seekers in other safe countries but rejected it as impractical”,
so is Labour for or against offshoring, and is that in principle, or on the basis of cost? Will it categorically rule out offshoring, or is it prepared to sell out the world’s most vulnerable just to get Labour over the threshold of No. 10?
It does not need to be this way—everything that has happened has been a political choice. This is about our duties and obligations in the world; about the European convention on human rights, which protects all of our rights; and about the refugee convention, which treats others as we would expect to be treated if a catastrophe happened on our own doorstep. Scotland wants none of these cruel, inhumane plans. The Scottish Government have published papers setting out our direction of travel on this issue, which I commend to all those who are listening. The Scotland we seek would take her duties to the world seriously: the spirit of Kenmure Street tells us that these are our neighbours and our friends, and we must do our part to see that they are safe.

Tim Loughton: It is unfortunate that Back Benchers will have under a third of this already truncated debate on what is a very important subject, but I start by praising the Opposition for starting the new year as consistently as they ended the last one: consistently undermining and attacking the Government’s policies to tackle illegal migration and questioning the cost and cost-effectiveness of such measures, while consistently voting against those measures to tackle illegal migration—no fewer than 86 times—and consistently failing to come up with any serious, practical alternative measures to clamp down on illegal migration themselves. When they do produce flimsy and ill-thought-through measures, as they did before Christmas, they are completely opaque about the cost, or any aspect of any effectiveness at all.
Today, the Opposition have excelled themselves with another Opposition day debate that is light on substance, light on comprehensiveness, completely light on viable alternatives, and light on throwing any light on anything at all that they would do. Time and time again, they have been challenged to come up with their own plans, and have failed. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been pretty consistent myself—both on and off the Home Affairs Select Committee—in challenging Ministers and officials on the workings and, often, shortcomings of migration policies for more clarity and evidence. That includes the withdrawals figures, on which we challenged the permanent secretary just before Christmas. That is the only part of the motion with which I agree; clearly, the Opposition got the idea from the Home Affairs Committee, and have just cut and pasted it into the motion today.
Having visited Tirana, Paris, Brussels, Calais, Belgian beaches, asylum seeker accommodation, detention centres, Border Force operations and so on with the Home Affairs Committee, I know that illegal migration is a complex and challenging issue that the PM has quite rightly identified as a priority for the British people. However, the Rwanda scheme is just one element of that bigger solution. No one is claiming that the scheme is ideal—as the Supreme Court has judged, it has flaws in its design to overcome, which the Government are now addressing—but essentially, it is there to deal with one major problem, and an unfairness that undermines the generosity of the British public in rightly providing and funding a safe haven for asylum seekers who are genuinely fleeing conflict, persecution and danger.
There is a question here, and until you can answer it, you lack credibility when attacking the Government’s attempts to do so. It is the question I raised earlier with the shadow Home Secretary, to which she did not have an answer: “What do you do with migrants from certain countries who have entered the UK illegally, who do not have credible claims to remain in the UK, yet where it is virtually impossible to return those people to their country of origin?”

Robert Buckland: On that point, my hon. Friend will know, as I do from my experience with foreign national offenders, how difficult it is for countries of origin to accept people back. Very often, they just will not acknowledge their existence, because it is not in their interests to take back people who they may think are a detriment to them. He mentioned  Eritrea and Vietnam, and there are a lot of other countries. This is difficult stuff, and he is right to press the loyal Opposition to come up with something more than the soundbites we have heard.

Tim Loughton: I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, because once those people make it into British territorial waters, they are in effect guaranteed to be living in the UK at the UK taxpayers’ expense for the foreseeable future, and that is what the Rwanda scheme aims to address. It is a deterrent to stop people making that dangerous journey in the first place, and it will become a lottery whether they end up in a hotel in Kent or on a plane to Rwanda. As I have said time and again, when the Home Affairs Committee went to Calais in January, we were told by all the officials dealing with the schemes over there, that when the Government initially announced the Rwanda scheme, there was a surge of people at Calais seeking to regularise their migration status in France, because they did not want to risk being put on a plane to Rwanda, so we know that it has a deterrent effect.

James Daly: As a fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee, would my hon. Friend agree that the same official said it was crucial that the United Kingdom Government have a strong deterrent policy as part of other policies to protect our borders?

Tim Loughton: That is exactly right. Other countries have shown an interest in the scheme, as did the officials when we spoke to them in France, and other countries want a part of the action that Rwanda may be getting once this scheme actually starts. It can unlock a whole host of opportunities, and I hope that we can ultimately have a series of European countries, particularly in north Europe, working together as a multifaceted network on a Rwanda-type scheme.
People smugglers thrive on any attempts to suggest that schemes such as this will not take off, so the Opposition are doing us a disservice. They are only playing into the hands of the people smugglers by trying to undermine the Rwanda scheme without coming up with any alternative that would seriously damage the trade of the people smugglers in the first place. So it is right that we should give the Rwanda scheme space to get off the ground—literally—and it is also right that we should scrutinise the effectiveness of the scheme.
The scheme needs to be put in the context of the alternatives. What is the cost of accommodating asylum seekers who have entered the UK illegally in hotels or other rented accommodation while awaiting their decisions? On the basis of £6 million or £8 million a day for hotels alone, every additional £100 million estimated to be spent on the Rwanda scheme would accommodate people in hotels for just 17 days. Let us put it in that context. What is the cost of multi-agency control and operation centres, and of Border Force and others patrolling the English channel and picking up the boats? Where is a reference in this motion to more transparency about how the £480 million subsidy we now give to the French police force is being spent? Despite the fact of that record subsidy, interception rates by the French authorities actually fell last year, and there is evidence that some of our money is being used in operations on the Franco-Italian border, rather than on the channel. Those are the comparisons that need to be made.
Labour—the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—came up with the five-point plan in March last year, but it turned out that most of those five points were already being undertaken by the Government anyway. Before Christmas, there was a story that Labour is considering detailed plans for a so-called offshoring scheme, and that the last Labour Government—David Blunkett and others—apparently discussed a scheme for offshoring to Tanzania, something that has been described by the current Labour leader as a “gimmick”, so why the change of heart? What is different in the principles of what they are apparently looking at now from those of the Rwanda plan for offshoring migrants? Is this a change of heart on the policy, and if so, why are they still objecting to the Rwanda scheme? Is it that they just do not like Rwanda, or that they just do not like the cost of it, in which case, what is the cost of their own scheme? If they are going to criticise what the Government are doing because of a lack of transparency, their potential schemes, which have been denied and then not denied, are completely and utterly opaque.
This is a sham, a shambles, a Labour gimmick and a con. It is a feeble attempt to show that the Opposition are somehow tackling illegal migration by talking about it, attacking the Government and voting against every attempt to bring forward practical measures, while having no credible working plans of their own. They need to be called out for it, and I shall be voting against this motion.

Diana R. Johnson: I will focus my remarks on the cost of the Rwanda plan, whether it is going to be effective and whether it is value for money. Nearly 18 months ago the Select Committee on Home Affairs stated in our report on channel crossings:
“The Home Office must provide more detailed costings for its Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda, including estimates of the likely cost within the current financial year of relocations and probable costs of relocations during the full five years of the programme.”
We made those recommendations all those months ago in part because we learned that the then Home Secretary had been required to issue a ministerial direction to the Home Office permanent secretary to implement the Rwanda scheme as he felt there was insufficient evidence of deterrent to enable him to guarantee the policy’s value for money, which, as the accounting officer, he is responsible for, and to date he has not changed his view.
That issue and the use of public money for this controversial plan have been a source of contention for many from the get-go, which is why we believed transparency about the costs involved was vital for proper scrutiny and public trust in this policy, yet here we are with what limited information we do have about the scheme’s costs having dribbled out slowly and most recently accidentally via the International Monetary Fund’s board papers. That is despite questions about the costs being repeatedly put by myself and other Committees including the Public Accounts Committee over the last 18 months.
The most recent substantive update on costs came in a late-night letter from the permanent secretary to myself and the Chair of the PAC my hon. Friend the Member  for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) following that inadvertent disclosure via IMF papers, and we learned that following the £140 million paid to Rwanda in ’22-’23 there has been an additional £100 million in April ’23 and a further £50 million would be paid in ’24-’25, but the deal with Rwanda is for five years and we are yet to discover what the Government have pledged to pay for the final two years of the scheme.
The justification, which I have heard again today, is about commercial sensitivity, yet apparently it is not so commercially sensitive that the costs cannot be disclosed retrospectively via the annual accounts. Clearly there is something here that does not add up and I know that the Chair of the PAC shares my view on this: that in other instances it has been possible to have regular updates on spending proposals and policies like this.
Question marks hang over not just the fixed cost of the scheme but the per-person costs of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. We know the Government have pledged to pay Rwanda a certain amount for each asylum seeker sent there to have their claim processed, but again we do not know how much, although it is of interest that the Home Office estimate in the economic impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 the cost of relocating a single individual asylum seeker to a third country at £169,000, which represents, we are told,
“additional costs incurred relative to processing an individual through…the current migration system.”
We understand that the cost of processing asylum claims here in the UK through the current migration system is around £12,000. As the Home Affairs Committee pointed out almost 18 months ago:
“Migration, including irregular migration across the English Channel, is an issue on which no magical single solution is possible and on which detailed, evidence-driven, properly costed and fully tested policy initiatives are by far most likely to achieve sustainable incremental change.”

Katherine Fletcher: Better get some then.

Diana R. Johnson: I am going to carry on.
With a singular yet untested Rwanda scheme swallowing up so much Government time and resource it is vital that the Home Secretary is up front about the costs involved. This is about public money being paid to Rwanda by the UK on an issue of great concern to the British people; it is not private funds being exchanged between two companies, and as the Institute for Government points out,
“good scrutiny really can contribute to good government.”
Transparency is key to unlocking good public policy. It is therefore absolutely right that Parliament asks and gets detailed responses to questions concerning the cost of the Government’s Rwanda plan and administration of the asylum system. This is about Parliament being able to do its fundamental job of scrutiny, holding the Executive to account.
I do not have time to ask all the other questions I would like to raise which relate to the treaty that has been signed, the new appeals system, the right to legal advice for all asylum seekers sent to Rwanda, and whether additional moneys will be paid by the British  Government for all of those, but I hope the Minister will come clean in his wind-up as to the exact costs of the scheme.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. To accommodate all Members as best I can, after Sir Robert Buckland, the time limit will drop to four minutes.

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who addressed the motion tabled in the name of her Front Benchers and came to the meat of the issues in a succinct way. The arguments that she has put before the House are legitimate and merit close scrutiny by both her Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, and were the subject of a letter that she jointly sent with the Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), on 8 December. Putting my Select Committee Chair hat on, I associate myself with those remarks in the spirit of cross-party co-operation.
However, Opposition Front Benchers have stumbled into what is, frankly, a debate between the Select Committees and the Government. They have missed a trick on this motion. We are now used to Humble Addresses, as they became a fad and a fashion much beloved of the now Leader of the Opposition when he was shadow Brexit Secretary back in 2017-18. Those of us who were Members of that Parliament may not want to be reminded of those times. I certainly remember being on the Front Bench as Solicitor General during the great debate on contempt of Parliament that we well remember—I bear the scars on my back.
I could simply fold my arms and say that Humble Addresses are very 2019, and perhaps we have moved on, but I will not because a number of past Humble Address motions have related to disclosure not to the full House but direct to Select Committees. Here is the point that we might have reached some compromise on. Select Committees are more than capable, through the good offices of their Chairs and Clerks, to hold sensitive information in a confidential way, yet still provide the scrutiny and accountability that, clearly, Parliament is here for. It has been done in the past, and on this occasion my hon. and hon. and learned Friends on the Front Bench should actively consider whether commercially sensitive information can be shared in a sensible way with the appropriate Select Committees.

Diana R. Johnson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an interesting point. Both the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have asked for information that we would hold confidentially, just to reassure ourselves about the value for money of these schemes. Sadly, we have been refused that information by the Home Office.

Robert Buckland: I know that a letter was sent to the permanent secretary. I could not find a reply—the Committee may not have had one—and I suggest that civil servants in the Home Office need to respond with expedition to the Committee to furnish them with information. That is how we could have proceeded.  The Opposition Front Benchers have missed a trick by not couching their resolution in more specific terms, with the consent that I am sure would have been forthcoming from the respective Chairs of the Select Committees. But that is not the motion that we have before us.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, let me inform my right hon. and learned Friend and the House that the Committee has some of the most sensitive information available in a private reading room capacity, so there is no reason at all why we should not hold that information.

Robert Buckland: I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend, a parliamentarian of great experience. He is absolutely right to make that point. I urge consideration of that course upon my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) at the Dispatch Box, to consider whether that could be a way forward.
When Labour has a policy, it should be outlined in the form of an Opposition day motion. When it does not have much of a policy, it relies upon process arguments and Humble Address motions. That is what we see today. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) put it extremely powerfully in his remarks a moment ago that Labour is a party still in search of a coherent and cogent approach to this most serious of issues. It is all very well coming up with ideas that are already being deployed by the Government, or saying, “We’ll do it the same but a bit better,” but that is not up to the level of the events that face us. With climate change and conflict, mass migration of peoples out of harm’s way, or indeed for economic reasons, is a challenge not just for the United Kingdom but for the entire western world. These challenges face Governments of all stripes and colours.
I am glad to say that it is this Government who, through their arrangements and agreement with Albania, have achieved singular success in the past year in reducing those unacceptable numbers of small boats coming across the channel. It is this Government who are painstakingly working their way through bilateral agreements with key countries to speed up the process of returns to ensure that we can clear our prisons of foreign national offenders, rather than having to hold them in immigration facilities after the expiration of their sentence.
This Government are seeking, in an honest and realistic way, to answer the question of, “What on earth do you do with individuals who have had their applications determined, who have failed in their applications, but whose country of origin refuses even to recognise they exist?” I am afraid that is the big question—the $64,000 question, although perhaps I should adjust that for inflation—that needs to be addressed and faced up to. I know my hon. Friend the Minister is grappling with that problem, as have his predecessors.
There is nothing wrong in law or in principle with seeking to work with third countries to process asylum claims. I will reserve my remarks for next week’s two-day debate on the Floor of the House, when I will ask that question, but it is interesting that the Rwanda scheme is different from other schemes, such as the Australian scheme, in that we are not using UK law to determine these applications, but are outsourcing the whole thing to Rwanda. That sometimes is not fully understood,  and I have to say that that has been a bit of a glass jaw, and it was quite broken by the Supreme Court in its judgment in November. Having said that, we are in a position now where the Government are seeking to try and deal with a position, and the Opposition are saying that even if Rwanda works, they will not do it. I do not think that sort of extreme approach is what the British people want to see, and it is not what this policy debate needs. We need an acceptance that what was being looked at by the previous Labour Government on third-country solutions is the right approach. Only by taking that particular line will we manage to crack this most difficult of problems.

Justin Madders: The unworkability and cost of the Rwanda scheme are representative of this Government’s dysfunctional approach to asylum applications as a whole. Faced with an election this year, and having failed to stop the boats—indeed, the failure was such that 2023 had the second-highest number of boat crossings ever—the grand plan is now to embark on a £400 million gamble on the promise to stop the boats. That is £400 million of taxpayers’ money being effectively lumped on one number at the roulette table with nothing other than blind faith being relied upon that the scheme will deal with the problem. What started as distraction tactics as part of Operation Save Big Dog has become central Government policy as part of Operation Save Ourselves.
I am probably overstating it by saying that blind faith is being shown in the plan. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the previous Home Secretary and the previous Immigration Minister all seem to have privately had doubts about it in office, and nothing I have heard from those on the Government Benches has persuaded me that this is being driven by anything other than desperation. Indeed, the Prime Minister was challenged on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg” about his time as Chancellor, when he supposedly examined the scheme. In effect, he said of the deterrent effect that it would supposedly have, “We have not tried this before, so we might as well give it a go.” His precise words were:
“This hasn’t been tried before in our country. It’s fair to say it is novel. I’ve been very clear that this is a novel scheme.”
I am all for innovation, but £400 million being spent on something on the basis we have not tried it before ought to be ringing alarm bells, particularly when nothing else that this Government have tried has stopped the boats either. It seems that the Government’s approach now is, in effect, third time lucky.

James Daly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Justin Madders: No, I have not got time, sorry.
It is £400 million at least, and there may be other costs that we do not know about, and that is why our motion is so important. I thought that taking back control meant an end to handing over millions of pounds to foreign powers without anything coming back in return. The Government’s impact assessment for the Bill states that it is
“uncertain what level of deterrence impact it will have”,
and given that deterrence is its whole point, there could not be a clearer case of the headline-first approach that this Government take on so many things, which is why, from housing to health to education to the economy, we are in such a mess.
In the most optimistic scenario, about 1% of those who cross the channel can expect to be sent to Rwanda—that is if all the numerous hurdles that we have talked about are overcome. Will anyone say, “I won’t take a chance on that 1% risk”? Of course not; it is just a giant smokescreen to cover up the Government’s many failings.
Those who work day to day in housing asylum seekers do not appear to have much confidence in the likelihood of there being any deterrent effect, either. We can go online and see that Serco, which is responsible for housing asylum seekers in private housing, is still advertising to landlords that it can guarantee rents for up to five years for doing so. It would hardly be doing that if it thought the Rwanda scheme would be a success or any other Government policies in the area were likely to have any effect.
I see nothing in the Rwanda agreement that will deliver on the claims being made about it. Never before has so much been given by so many for so little in return. When we have record taxation levels, public services on their knees and record Government debt, it is right that we challenge and question whether all that expenditure does what it says on the tin. It seems that the Prime Minister agrees with Labour’s approach. I will end with some words from his appearance on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”. When asked about the examination of the scheme, he said:
“You should always ask probing questions. You should always approach things from a position of scepticism to ensure that you get value for money for taxpayers.”
That is exactly what Labour’s motion seeks. The fact that the Government are set to oppose it says everything we need to know about why there is so little confidence that the scheme will deliver.
Putting Rwanda rhetoric ahead of reality is a really poor way to run the country. With that approach, it is no wonder that the Government are running scared of the people’s verdict.

Robert Syms: When I first came to the House, under a Labour Government, I was on an immigration Bill Committee. The key difficulty then was people coming on aircraft and ferries and, for road hauliers, people coming in lorries. That was eventually dealt with in places such as Dover by putting in machinery to look at heat from bodies, and that stopped that trade.
This is a profitable trade where inventive people—criminals—look at how they can get people in. They have decided that rubber boats are one way of doing so, and our maritime tradition and the treaties to which we have signed up over hundreds of years mean it is difficult to deal with people once they have set off to sea. The Government have a plan and a strategy to deal with that. The Opposition would have more authority in the debate had they not opposed the plan and strategy but instead shuffled the papers around, asked all these questions and bemoaned all the costs rather than setting out what they would do.
Of course, the Humble Address wants paperwork and more paperwork. Governments have internal debates and then come to a fixed position. The Treasury, the Education Department and the Home Office will have  different views. We would expect Ministers to argue privately and then come to a fixed position, but if people keep asking for papers to try to find out what those differences are, that will drive those debates underground, into private meetings and on to WhatsApp, which would not mean good government. The fact that the current Prime Minister argued a slightly different point when he was in charge of the money proves that he was doing a good job as Chancellor—he was kicking the tyres and ensuring that things had been thought through. We can see the Opposition’s motion as a substitute for having a policy. It just says that we are rubbish and that they would do things better, but they do not specify what they would do better.
The Government have a policy, and the $64,000 question is, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, about those people who come to the UK and cannot be returned to their countries. The ideal thing is to have country-to-country agreements, which are proven to be working—I am glad we have more of them—and are a strand of dealing with the issue. However, where we have an Iran, an Eritrea or another country where someone’s life might be threatened were they returned, we need somewhere else for them to go. Rwanda has made it part of its agenda, because it is financially to its benefit, to do deals with countries such as Britain to help to deal with the problem. Everybody can be a winner if we get there in the end.
There is no point in people in this debate saying it will not be a deterrent when it has not actually been tried and when every time we have tried to implement it there has been a range of people to deal with, not least some of the courts. The Government are legislating to deal with the concerns of our Supreme Court. We have a treaty that is based on international law and we will see whether it works. I hope that when it is proved to work, some of those who are criticising will stand up in this Chamber and say, “Actually, you were right.”

Tahir Ali: The Government’s approach to asylum seekers can at best be described as a farce. The asylum application backlog persists and is growing. Thousands of people have simply disappeared into the underground economy, with the Home Office admitting that it has lost track of nearly 17,000 people. The continued use of hotel accommodation is costing the British taxpayer untold millions, while the disgraced Rwanda plan limps ahead—a plan that even the Prime Minister admitted is costly and unworkable. It is no surprise, then, that the Government continue to refuse to disclose the full costs of the scheme. When the Prime Minister came into office he promised professionalism, integrity and accountability at every level. One thing is sure: he has failed at every level on all three.
We know that the Government have already paid £240 million to Rwanda. Further money, in the hundreds of millions, will be paid. It will cost £100 million more to operate, with additional costs of nearly £170,000 per person relocated to Rwanda. Given that it costs £12,000 to process asylum claims in the UK, the cost-benefit of the Rwanda scheme seems non-existent—and that is before one even begins to consider the moral and ethical cost of deporting people to Rwanda.
The UK Supreme Court found that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would be unlawful, given “substantial grounds” to believe that those transferred there could be sent back to countries where they could face persecution and inhumane treatment. We would do well to remember that according to the 1951 refugee convention, any person seeking asylum has the right to apply for asylum in the UK and remain here until the authorities have assessed their claim. Furthermore, it is also recognised that persons fleeing persecution may use irregular means to escape and claim asylum.
The Rwanda scheme, along with the Government’s continued criminalisation of asylum seekers crossing the channel, amounts to a complete repudiation of international law and the universal obligations under which we in the UK are bound to assist those seeking safety and security. I have no doubt that the British public will see the Government’s effort regarding the Rwanda plan for what it is: a flagrant, cynical and cruel attempt to force through costly and unworkable legislation, contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court, in a desperate bid to salvage an already ruined reputation.
The asylum system in the UK is in crisis. It is precisely due to the continued incompetence of the Government and their Ministers that the crisis has come about and it will persist until a Labour Government are elected to sort out the mess.

James Daly: Listening to the debate, I think there may be a complete misunderstanding about the fundamental point of the legislation. It is a deterrent. I could pluck any figure out of the air and if the deterrent effect, together with other measures, is to hopefully reduce to zero the number of channel crossings, that will be money well spent. It is a deterrent.
I agreed with absolutely every word said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), a fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee. I do not know how many Members present have actually been to the beaches in Calais, engaged with people and asked for their views on whether this is a deterrent or not. There has been talk about Select Committees, but I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and one of the best politicians I know, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee—I hope the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) does not mind me being nice to her in the Chamber—have actually been there. French officials who are working on the frontline support this policy.
What evidence could be cited to suggest that there is a deterrent effect? Well, as my hon. Friend said, when the policy was announced there was a rush to get over here before it was actually in place. This may come as a shock to Opposition Members, but when we were speaking to people on the beaches, who were almost universally single males in their 20s, the vast majority of those I, at least, spoke to—I stand to be corrected—said that they were coming here for purely economic reasons. They saw the streets of the United Kingdom as streets paved with gold. The only piece of evidence that can be advanced by the members of the Select Committee who have actually been to Calais shows that this policy will have a deterrent effect and that it will work. There is not a shred of evidence from the Opposition that it will not work.
My right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee—I will call her my right hon. Friend—is an extremely good politician. As a member of the Committee, I know that the questions asked about costings are extremely fair, and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will answer them this evening, just as he has answered many of them when he has appeared before the Committee, but I do wonder sometimes when we talk about the principle behind the Bill. I asked the shadow Home Secretary whether the Labour party was considering the use of offshore processing. There was no answer, and we know that that is because Labour is considering it. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he will consider any plan that works. Rwanda will work, so on the basis of that logic, he will have to accept Rwanda.
I wonder what Opposition Members make of the fact that the Austrian and German Governments are considering processing asylum seekers abroad. Denmark, that bastion of right-wing extremism, passed a law in 2001 allowing refugees to be moved to asylum centres in third countries for processing. The EU, which is exactly the organisation on which the Labour party bases itself, indirectly supports offshore asylum processing as part of broader efforts to stop refugees coming across the Mediterranean and—I cannot believe I am saying this—the bloc has spent not millions but billions of dollars to prevent refugees from reaching Greece and funded the Libyan coastguard to push migrant boats back to north Africa from Europe. Perhaps we could ask the French to do it, but I will leave that question hanging in the air for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister.
To top it all, there is even a UN programme, the emergency transit programme, under which more than 3,000 people who were heading for Europe were moved from Libyan detention centres to Niger—a scheme similar to the Rwanda scheme for asylum seekers. Every international body supports what we are doing. They are all spending money, and they all believe that this will have a deterrent effect. The Opposition have no policy. This debate is a complete gimmick. The Government’s policy is the only policy in town, it is being followed by other countries, and it will work.

Andrew Western: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) has read the motion, but it is about the cost of the scheme, and it restricts itself entirely to that. Essentially, it comes down to one issue: transparency. Do we believe that our constituents deserve to know how much of their money the Government plan to spend on their shambolic Rwanda scheme, and do we believe that they deserve to see the full details of the asylum backlog clearance programme so that they can understand how it is possible for the Home Office to have lost track of thousands of asylum seekers?

Katherine Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Western: No, I will not. I apologise, but time does not allow me to do so.
Ministers need to be held to account for an expensive shambles that has sent more Home Secretaries than asylum seekers to Rwanda. Meanwhile, our borders  remain in a state of chaos and desperate people suffer enormously at the hands of people smugglers, but here we have a Government ducking transparency yet again when it comes to the cost of the scheme.
What we do know is that £240 million has been sent to Rwanda already, with £50 million more scheduled for this spring. We know too that the Home Office has admitted that at least two further payments are planned for the next two years, but it will not confirm how much these payments will be. Why not?
We also know that Ministers have promised extra payments for every individual asylum seeker sent, but again they have refused to say how much—why on earth not? Presumably they have told their Rwandan counterparts how much they are paying them, so if the Minister is still refusing to disclose those costs in this place, perhaps he can answer why he thinks the Rwandan Government should know more about how British taxpayers’ money is spent than British taxpayers themselves.

Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Western: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the time constraints, so I apologise, but I will not.
The Prime Minister and this Government are taking the British public for fools—not just over the Rwanda scheme, but over asylum backlogs too. It is categorically false to claim that these backlogs have been cleared. The current overall backlog is almost 100,000 asylum cases. Even so, the so-called “legacy backlog” remains at 4,500 cases. Amidst this chaos, Home Office officials have admitted that as many as 17,000 asylum seekers are now missing from their system and they have no clue where they are.
But perhaps the worst thing is that this complete dysfunction no longer shocks anybody. Who could be surprised that asylum policy is in chaos, with a Conservative party that has given us eight Home Secretaries in eight years and three failed pieces of legislation on channel crossings in three years, and spent vast sums of money on a Rwanda scheme that has been declared unlawful by the highest court in the land?
Convictions of people smugglers are 30% lower under this Government than under the last Labour Government, and returns of failed asylum seekers are 50% lower now than they were under Labour. Ultimately, if the Government had confidence in their record on asylum or the strength of their Rwanda scheme, they would have nothing to hide, and if they had nothing to hide, they would release the figures requested by supporting the motion today.

Katherine Fletcher: We are having an interesting and important debate, set in the global context of increasingly large numbers of people on the move. Climate change is driving them forward. The entrepreneurial among them are looking for economic opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) mentioned, but I think it is worth dwelling on what our Rwanda scheme seeks to stop.
What is actually happening to some of the most vulnerable people in the world? They have criminal gangsters coming up to them, in countries in Asia, the  far east and Africa, getting hold of them, maybe even coercing them slightly, and saying, “You know what? Sell granny’s farm, because the streets of the UK are absolutely paved with gold. You give us five, eight, 10 grand, sell granny’s farm to mortgage it, and you’ll be able to make a fortune and look after her.” Only when they are on a beach in Calais, with a gangster pointing a gun at them, telling them to get in an overcrowded and dangerous boat, do they understand what we are trying to stop. They are being sold a pup by criminals.
Today’s debate is not about point scoring and policy, although you would not believe it from listening to some of the stuff the Opposition say. We are taking action to tackle it. We are saying that if someone comes to this country illegally, they cannot stay here illegally, because otherwise we would be opening the window to a demand model for gangsters who were strapping kids under lorries under Tony Blair and are now strapping young men, teenagers, women and children to dangerous boats across the channel.
So we are working with France, and with Albania. The Home Office is taking a lot of steps to tackle what happens further upstream, including where the boats are bought from. We have got a treaty with another country, we are sorting out accommodation, and we are sorting out the backlogs. We are getting involved, putting more staff in.
What do the Opposition offer us? They offer us a highly moralising case. If this has not been clear from my remarks, there is a moral case to take every action we can possibly take to stop people getting done by criminals. So what do Labour Members do? They vote against it—is it 76 times, 73 times, 83 times? Goodness knows.

Tim Loughton: Eighty-six.

Katherine Fletcher: I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge.
Government Members are putting practical ideas in place, and what is the Labour party doing? Changing its mind. It has no plan and no ideas. Its soundbites are so brittle that its Members cannot take interventions from Conservative Members.
We have a worked-through plan that is trying something different to make sure we handle this in a global context. Everybody is facing this problem and, with channel crossings already down by a third, a nascent deterrent effect is occurring. We are working with the social media firms to make sure these—rude word—gangsters cannot sell absolute nonsense on TikTok and Facebook to kids who just dream of a better life. That is the action we are taking, and what are Labour Members doing? They are tabling process motions and asking for details but, crucially, they will not tell us their plan, because they do not have one.

Ruth Jones: I thank the shadow Home Secretary for securing this debate. This emotive issue affects every one of us, which is why we need to be open, honest and up front with the people of the UK about how we protect our borders and tackle migration.
I thank the Welsh Refugee Council for working tirelessly with refugees and asylum seekers, in spite of the horrific abuse it faces from the far right. The Welsh Refugee  Council is a standout example of Wales putting into practice its ethos of being a nation of sanctuary, and it deserves our praise.
I also thank the sanctuary in Newport run by The Gap, and particularly Mark and Sarah for their diligence, passion and advocacy. Their innovative ideas and compassion in working with refugees and asylum seekers are a credit to them.
We are in a financial mess, and the Government need to come clean about the likely cost of the Rwanda scheme to the British taxpayer. It is at least £400 million, and that is without a single asylum seeker being sent to Rwanda. All this is happening when the cost of living crisis in Newport West and across the United Kingdom continues to hit the poorest hardest, yet Tory Ministers seemingly have no concern, no issue and no shame about wasting taxpayers’ money on a scheme that simply will not work. Is it any surprise that our unelected Conservative Prime Minister thought the scheme was not worth the money? For the first time, I agree with him.
This unelected Prime Minister is taking us for fools on the asylum backlog. His claim to have cleared it is completely false. As we have already heard, the current overall backlog is almost 100,000 asylum cases, which is why record numbers of people are still in asylum hotels, costing the taxpayer £8 million a day, 12 months after the Prime Minister promised to end it.
The Tories have not even cleared the so-called legacy backlog, with 4,500 cases still unresolved and tens of thousands of cases having simply been withdrawn by the Home Office. I have some experience of the backlog in my constituency, and it is a very real problem. I have real people in Newport West waiting for Home Office decisions, such as the Ethiopian student who has been waiting for a decision on the interview he had in 2021—he has still not heard. A husband, wife and four children who applied for citizenship in December 2021 are still waiting, too. Those cases are just the tip of the iceberg, and let us remember that those are real people doing their best in very difficult circumstances.
On the opposite side of the coin, we have officials admitting that as many as 17,000 people are missing. They do not know where they are, and they may well be in the underground economy. What a disgraceful state of affairs. Can the Minister tell us how many asylum backlog cases were cleared simply by removing people from the list? Does he know where those individuals are?
The motion before the House calls for the Home Office to publish the full cost of the Rwanda scheme, as it did for the France co-operation programme, for which funding has been announced up until 2026.
Over the last six years, the Tories have let the criminal smuggler gangs take over the channel, and they have allowed Home Office asylum decision making to collapse. We have record asylum backlogs and huge delays, and the taxpayer is having to fund asylum hotels. This is the Tories’ asylum chaos, and they are failing to fix it.
Labour’s plan would strengthen our border security and smash the criminal gang networks and supply chains, with new powers and a new cross-border police unit. We will clear the backlog with new fast-track systems and end hotel use, saving the taxpayer over £2 billion, and we will improve enforcement with a new returns and enforcement unit to reverse the collapse in  returns for those who have no right to be here. That is how we in the United Kingdom can do our bit to help genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and conflict, while returning those with no right to be here, but we have none of that under the Tories, just more chaos. The sooner we get rid of them, the better.

Sarah Edwards: I wish to start by emphasising that many asylum seekers are fleeing abhorrent conditions that many of us in this Chamber could only imagine, and it is important that we do not lose sight of those stories. However, we must end the current chaotic approach adopted by the Government. The unworkable, unaffordable Rwanda plan claims to deal with 100 people, but we need a proper plan to deal with the 100,000 people’s cases stuck in the backlog of the system.
In my constituency, local residents are concerned about the use of the Holiday Inn to host asylum seekers; the enormous backlog of cases means that many are still there. My constituents are concerned not only because these hotels cost the taxpayer £8 million per day, but because this hotel plays a fundamental role in the local community and economy. Some of these people have been living in the hotel for years—they have been there so long that they have the right to work and are contributing to a charity in the local community. Some have even been baptised in the local church but have been moved to other locations and once again find themselves uprooted in this chaos. For those who have tried to settle in the community but whose applications have still not been processed, this is a terrible failing.
Tamworth is a beautiful town that many people come to visit. We are proud of our local heritage and landmark tourism sites, be it the Drayton Manor theme park, the SnowDome or Tamworth castle, and the Holiday Inn should be used for holidays. This £8 million per day would go a huge way in helping Tamworth to redevelop its town centre and bolster its tourism economy, and it could be far better spent in revitalising local communities across the country. My constituents want to know that those seeking refuge and who are eligible have their claims dealt with swiftly and fairly, but they also want their hotel back. Can the Government explain why it is taking so long to recruit the staff needed to process applications, whom they cut years ago? That has landed the Government in this mess in the first place.
I call on my colleagues to adopt Labour’s plan to strengthen our border security, clear the backlog once and for all, and finally bring an end to hotel use. That includes recruiting the Home Office caseworkers to clear the backlog and 1,000 staff for the returns unit so that those who do not have a right to stay here can be quickly removed. Crucially, the plan will crack down on the criminal smuggler gangs, through the cross-border police unit and deeper security co-operation with Europe.
The Rwanda plan has seen £240 million of taxpayers’ money paid to Rwanda so far, yet not one asylum seeker has been sent to the country. The current overall backlog is almost 100,000 asylum cases, resulting in record numbers of people still in the asylum hotels, such as the one in Tamworth, 12 months after the Prime Minister promised to end them. I know that my constituents are concerned about the use of the Holiday Inn to host asylum seekers, which they feel is a waste of money, so when can we have our hotel back?
We still do not have a clear idea of just how much taxpayers’ money is going to be funnelled into this broken project. We have weakened border security, a broken asylum system, criminal gangs taking advantage and risking lives, and record levels of boat crossings. Transparency is fundamental to any good democracy. With this level of taxpayers’ money being funnelled into a scheme under which we are yet to see 100 asylum seekers sent to Rwanda, the Home Office must publish the full costs of the Rwanda scheme, as well as the full details of the asylum backlog clearance programme, so that we know how many people the Home Office has lost track of and what decisions are being taken.
I call on my colleagues to adopt Labour’s plan to strengthen our border security, clear the backlog once and for all and finally bring an end to the use of Tamworth’s Holiday Inn as an asylum hotel. Labour’s plan includes recruiting the additional caseworkers who could deal with this—

Roger Gale: Order. I call Michael Shanks.

Michael Shanks: The last debate we had in this place on this Rwanda plan was such a bizarre moment, as we watched Conservative Members, from one side of the party to the other, lobbying one another, with threats to vote against the Bill all quietly dispensed with when the moment finally came. Today, we seemed to have a bit of consensus on the Government Benches—consensus to withhold transparency from the taxpayers as to how much the Government’s plan is going to cost. I am surprised that we do not agree about that, because surely we can all agree that the public have an interest in knowing how taxpayers’ money is being spent.
I have not yet heard any explanation from Government Members about why not withholding this information is so difficult. Perhaps it is because the economic note attached to the Bill has an intriguing section under “Costs and benefit summary” that states:
“There are no monetised costs or benefits.”
The assessment is not even convinced the plan will work, saying
“dependent on the deterrent effect achieved, there could be fewer individuals undertaking hazardous and unnecessary journeys”.
As I said last time we debated the issue, we are united in wanting to bring these dangerous crossings to an end, but it is clear the Government themselves do not have confidence that the plan will work, which is why nobody was surprised by recent news reports that the Prime Minister was not convinced by it either.
Instead of facing up to the Government’s failures on immigration, we are presented with this hugely costly distraction. The Chairs of the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have had to drag out of witnesses the fact that even more money will be spent on the plan in years to come. In December, the permanent secretary at the Home Office told the Public Accounts Committee that he could not confirm any future funding had been agreed for Rwanda, and I heard the Minister say in his opening remarks that the  Government of Rwanda asked for no money and no money was offered. That means either the funding for future years was already agreed in advance, or we are not sending any further money to Rwanda. In either case, it would be easiest for the Government to simply confirm one way or another what funding is being sent.
These are, of course, only the costs we know about. Aside from the financial cost, there is a broader cost to this absurd plan: a moral cost. The Home Office’s own statistics show that at least six out of 10 of those who made the dangerous channel crossing to the UK last year would be recognised as refugees, and would therefore be given asylum in this country, meaning the plan will not tackle that particular problem, and it does not deal with the criminal gangs who are exploiting these vulnerable people in the first place.
There is also a cost to Britain’s standing in the world and a diminishing of the sense that we follow the rule of law. Now we simply pass laws saying that one thing is true, even if it is not. No doubt, a flurry of amendments are being drafted as we speak ahead of next week’s debate. The agreement we have seen on the Government Benches today will disappear by Tuesday, when we will see the Bill back before us and it may not even pass.
As unpalatable as I find the legislation, I cannot understand why there is no transparency for those Government Members who support it. If they believe in this policy, if it is a rock-solid proposal that presents good value for money and if the costs are already written down somewhere, as we know they are, why not just tell us what they are? The least this Government should do today, with no effort whatsoever, is release the financial costs to the public, so that we know how much of our taxpayers’ money is being spent.

Stephen Kinnock: I pay tribute to all colleagues who have taken the time to speak today, particularly the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks), who made excellent contributions to the debate.
It is crystal clear that the money being wasted on this fantasy—this fixation—in which Members on the Government Benches choose to indulge would be far better spent on proper investment in a cross-border police unit and a security partnership with Europol to go after the criminal gangs upstream, smash those gangs and stop the boats getting in the water in the first place. That is what the Labour party has spent the last year urging the Prime Minister to do and that is what we will do in Government, to help end this Tory small boats chaos. Yet the Prime Minister has instead chosen to bury his head in the sand and double down on failure.
The Rwanda farce is so riddled with absurdity that it is difficult to know where to start. Perhaps the most absurd aspect is that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary agree with the Labour position on this whole sorry mess—they are Rwanda sceptics and non-believers.  Last week, it emerged that when he was Chancellor and during his leadership bid, the Prime Minister privately indicated that he had profound concern over the value for money and the workability of this hare-brained Rwanda scheme. “The deterrent won’t work”, he wrote. How extraordinary then that he is now staking his entire premiership on a scheme that he does not even believe in. How humiliating it must be for him to know that his Back Benchers are pushing him around. They are calling the shots. When all is said and done, what has the Tories’ farcical Rwanda fixation delivered? They have sent three Home Secretaries to Rwanda, but not a single asylum seeker. There has been plenty of pie in the sky, but not a single plane in the sky.
I mentioned earlier the strong contributions from those on the Benches behind me. I was however struggling a bit to understand the logic of the Minister’s point about the information being requested around the costs of the Rwanda plan being somehow commercially sensitive. The Government were all too happy to reveal that they are forking out £500 million on paying the French police to puncture dinghies on the beaches of Calais. The permanent secretary told the Public Affairs Committee that the Rwanda- related costs would be revealed in the accounts in July. Why not just reveal them now? What are they afraid of? Well, they are clearly terrified of admitting that they are blowing £400 million of taxpayer money on this failing scheme. They should ‘fess up and reveal what the real costs are both in terms of what it will cost to fly each individual asylum seeker halfway around the world and what it will cost in terms of processing and related support. We know that it is at least £169,000 per asylum seeker, but can they confirm whether it is even higher—£200,000 or more, as was said earlier? What have they got to hide? Well, perhaps we know what they have to hide—that this Rwanda plan is unaffordable and unworkable. Even if flights take off, they will be about 1% of the 30,000 channel crosses at a maximum. That will not even scratch the surface of the people smugglers’ business model.
Meanwhile, we see that: more than 100,000 asylum cases are unresolved, despite the deceitful nonsense the Prime Minister puts out on social media; nearly 400 hotels are being used for asylum seekers—a number that has gone up not down under this Prime Minister; and 56,000 asylum seekers are languishing in those hotels, costing the taxpayer a staggering £8 million per day.
We need transparency on this. We need transparency around the issue of withdrawn claims. Astonishingly, they make up one third of the recently processed asylum claims that the Prime Minister has been boasting about clearing, yet they have not even been processed properly. As an exercise in the politics of smoke and mirrors, this is surely without parallel. Did the Prime Minister and Home Secretary seriously think that nobody would notice? Did they seriously think that they could pull the wool over the eyes of the British public? What an insult to the intelligence of the electorate. They should come clean to the British public, with a full breakdown of the 35,000 withdrawn claims: who are they; where are they; and are they simply reapplying, or are they drifting away into the underground economy never to be heard of again? Last summer, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) described that trend as an amnesty by the back door. Is he right? The Minister must come clean on these points.
We need a serious plan. We need the end of these headline-grabbing antics. We need common sense, hard graft and international co-operation, as has been set out in Labour’s five-point plan for the past year. [Laughter.] Conservative Members do not like it, but the fact is that their plan is not working. They need to come clean over these costs. They need to clear this backlog. I urge Members from all parts of the House to support our Humble Address today so that we can begin the long road back to recovery.

Michael Tomlinson: Oh, how much I enjoyed the smile on the shadow Minister’s face as he wound up. I am delighted to have the opportunity to wind up this debate. My only disappointment, perhaps even slight sadness, is that this motion is more about process than it is about substance. On the substance, what we have not heard from those on the Opposition Benches is the cost of not acting. There is the financial cost: the illegal migration costs to the British taxpayer, amounting to billions of pounds a year, including £8 million a day for emergency housing, pressures on public services and more. There is also the human cost, the moral case for our Rwanda policy—I will turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) in a few moments—and the compassionate case for our Rwanda policy. How many more lives must be lost in the channel before Opposition parties join us in our mission to end those dangerous journeys?
The Rwanda policy is one part of an intensive and focused strategy for tackling illegal migration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) pointed out, the plan is delivering. Small boat crossings are down by 36%—a reduction that has been achieved even as numbers rise elsewhere in Europe. We know that there is more to do, and the Rwanda policy will give us a powerful tool to complete this mission.
I will turn to some of the Back-Bench contributions, but I will start with the SNP Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I did not disagree with everything she said.

Alison Thewliss: I’m resigning!

Michael Tomlinson: The hon. Lady threatens to resign, even as I say that. I knew she would be disappointed because I agreed with her on this point: she rightly challenged Labour on what its plan was. She is right to ask those questions, which have been repeated across the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was absolutely right to set out that this is a complex and challenging issue. There is no lack of robust scrutiny from him, not least during the course of Home Affairs Committee sittings. He rightly pointed out the lack of credibility from Labour—that there is no plan or alternative put forward. I look forward to further scrutiny from him, and he rightly said that the motion is a Labour gimmick and con.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) addressed the substance of the motion and was credited for that by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon  (Sir Robert Buckland). What she did not set out was what Labour’s plan was in the alternative. My right hon. and learned Friend reminded us that this was a process debate, not a debate of substance. He rightly said that when one does not have much of a policy, one relies on process debates and Humble Addresses—how right he was. This is a global issue, and Labour’s one policy is that even if Rwanda works, it would scrap it. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) set out his experience, and I treat it very seriously not only because he is my neighbour, but because he is an MP with a port in his constituency. He put it well when he said that the motion is a substitute for having a policy, and how right he was.
I do not have time to delve into each and every one of the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly). He rightly commented that the debate is a gimmick, but he also set out quite seriously the deterrent effect that is part of our Rwanda scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble set out the fact that some of the most vulnerable people we are talking about are being coerced by criminal gangs. She was right to state both that and the moral case for our policy.
The Government have a plan—this Rwanda plan—for deterring those dangerous journeys, but what again is the Opposition’s plan? They do not have one. Their only reported plan is one that would increase the number of asylum seekers to this country, by allowing them to make claims from other countries. We do not accept that proposition. It would mean taking people from safe countries where they can already seek refuge from persecution, and there is no way that we could accommodate each and every one of those claims. What is the Opposition’s plan?
As we have heard during the course of this debate, Labour has voted against our measures 86 times, but we will not be deterred. We will do right by the decent, law-abiding people of this country, who want and expect secure borders and an effective immigration system. When people with no right to be here know that they will not be able to stay, they will stop coming.
We know the deterrent effect because we have seen it with Albania. A year ago the Prime Minister secured the deal with Albania. Planes took off and more than 5,000 people have been returned to Albania. The deterrent effect has worked and arrivals are down by more than 90%. It has worked with Albania; it will work with Rwanda. Illegal migration costs lives. It costs billions of pounds a year. We need to end it, we will end it and we will stop the boats.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 304.
Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services

That the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023 (SI, 2023, No. 1306), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 December 2023, be approved.—(Mr Mohindra.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Biodiversity Gain Site Register (Financial Penalties and Fees) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 30 November 2023, be approved.—(Mr Mohindra.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Biodiversity Gain (Town and Country Planning) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 30 November 2023, be approved.—(Mr Mohindra.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Disclosure of Information

That the draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Identity Verification Services) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 19 September 2023, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Mohindra.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Building and Buildings

That the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 9 November 2023, be approved.—(Mr Mohindra.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Boots Pharmacy closures in Hull North

Diana R. Johnson: I rise to present this petition, mirroring the Boots pharmacy closures petition on my website, currently signed by over 430 Hull North constituents. Cuts to pharmacies are part of the wider crisis in the NHS, including GP shortages and in dentistry, in the most deprived and left-behind communities. I know that my local people in Hull North are particularly concerned, as are the elderly and families with children, about these closures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Kingston Upon Hull North,
Declares that the Boots Pharmacies in Hull North should not be closed; notes in particular residents’ concerns about losing the pharmacies at 860 Beverley Road and 132 Chanterlands Avenue; further notes that pharmacies play a vital role in alleviating pressures facing the NHS and are relied upon by local communities.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the Boots Pharmacies in Hull remain open and that local pharmacies are sufficiently supported and easily accessible to residents.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002885]

Petition - NHS dental appointments in rural areas

Tim Farron: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,652 of my constituents, who declare their concern about the lack of NHS dental appointments available in rural areas such as ours in Cumbria, given that 50% of local children and 64% of local adults do not have access to an NHS dentist.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares concern for the lack of NHS dental appointments available in rural areas.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to increase training places for new dentists, reform NHS dental contracts and make it easier to recruit experienced dentists to fill dental vacancies in rural areas.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002895]

Grangemouth Oil Refinery:  Energy Security

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Mohindra.)

Kenny MacAskill: “Bathgate no more, Linwood no more, Methil no more, Irvine no more” sang the Proclaimers as they detailed the devastation caused by industrial closures and the hardship and emigration that followed. That was in the 1980s as Thatcher mercilessly shut the pits, decimating Scottish industry. Not just the many individuals who lost their jobs, but entire communities and the whole country suffered as de-industrialisation took root. The country has recovered but much has still been lost and for some it is irrecoverable, irreplaceable, or both. Scars remain and pain runs deep. The devastation will neither be forgotten nor forgiven. But is there now to be a new line of “Grangemouth no more”?
Scotland’s oil refinery stands threatened. Its closure would result in the perversity of an oil-producing nation lacking refinery capacity. I asked the House of Commons Library for research on oil-producing nations and refinery capacity. There are few nations which are oil producers yet lack refinery capacity. Norway has two refineries, and of those nations which lack a refinery capacity none are in the top 25 oil producers, as Scotland is. Instead, they are countries which neither produce as much oil as Scotland nor even have a developed economy. They are largely developing nations such as the Congo or Trinidad and Tobago, not a developed and industrial land like Scotland, which now faces the absurdity of being a major oil producer yet lacking refinery capacity.
If closure proceeds, Scotland will be getting treated like a developing nation: its raw product taken for a song and then sold back as a refined product, but at a premium to people and nation. Exploitation is what it is called. The Rosebank field and the North sea are to be the saviours of the UK economy, yet Scotland is to lose its refinery and face social and economic hardship as a result. Exploitation is what it is. That is what we will inherit if action is not taken.
Oil was first discovered in the 1960s and it would have made Scotland one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, but it was deliberately hidden from the Scottish people. That was to downplay expectations and diminish ambitions. Norway across the North sea has been transformed socially and economically by its oil resource, with a standard of living that Scots can only look at with envy and a sovereign wealth fund that Scotland can only dream of. Yet Scots have continually been told that the resource would soon be gone, and in 2014 at the referendum it was not just running out but even an impediment, a drain on an independent Scotland. Yet now it is at the heart of the UK’s economic recovery.
Although it has been rediscovered, what is in it for Scotland? As has been said, some nations discovered oil and made the desert bloom, but Scotland discovered oil and is seeing an industrial desert created in so many of its communities, and one could well now be Grangemouth. It is not just absurd but perverse that an oil-producing nation should have no oil refinery capacity. It is more than an economic argument; it is vital for economic security. War in Ukraine and conflicts in the middle east  have shown the consequences. In the world in which we live, energy is essential and securing all aspects of the supply chain is common sense.
Let us look at the economic arguments and consequences of any closure. The loss and hardship would be significant for thousands, not just hundreds, sending shockwaves through industrial Scotland. The plant’s workforce is 500 but there are also some 2,000 contractors attached to it. Moreover, they are skilled jobs and their loss, as with past industry closures, will impact on future generations. Not only have current and past generations benefited from working there, but numerous apprentices were trained there, even if ultimately plying their trade elsewhere. We already have a skills gap; this would worsen it considerably.
Job losses would be significantly higher than those simply at the site. Closure would reverberate across industries clustered nearby because of the refinery. If it closes, many of them will also be lost. They are in a variety of sectors, whether chemicals, plastics or other fields. That is without even considering the huge number of individuals who depend on the site whether for their corner shop, as drivers or in other trades, both locally and from more distant parts. There is always a multiplier effect in any redundancy but, given the pivotal nature of the industry to the country’s economy and its impact across a swathe of sectors, it would be huge. Both the town of Grangemouth and all of Scotland would suffer. The knock-on effect would echo across the entire country as industrial closures did decades ago, whether the pits or car plants.
Grangemouth’s refinery is a national asset upon which our energy security and industrial economy depends. That is why it must be retained. There has been a refinery there for a century. It currently provides 70% of Scottish filling stations, as well as many in northern England. It is also the primary supplier of aviation fuel for Scotland’s airports—not an insignificant issue for an island nation with many remote island communities. As I have stated, energy security demands it.
We are seeking to transition from a carbon economy, but it must be a just transition and at a pace allowing our economy and society to adapt. The cumulative impact of closure might not be the 4% loss of GDP suggested by Petroineos, but even the 0.25% or 0.3% loss of GDP suggested by the Fraser of Allander Institute would be damaging enough. Where is the outrage and anger? Where is the ministerial statement here at Westminster or the call to action at Holyrood? Instead, there has been silence or sanguinity, hope that it just might not happen or, even more disgracefully, quiet resignation to its fate.
Thankfully, Unite the Union and the workforce are strenuously making the case, and I am grateful for their assistance and input. Closure is still only potential rather than actual, but the threat is real, and there has to be a balance between causing unnecessary alarm and taking urgent action. Unless action is taken now, disaster will befall Grangemouth refinery and the impact will be grave upon all—workers, the wider community and the entire nation.
What needs done? Ownership has changed over the years, and profitability has been affected by under-investment. No blame can be attached to the current or  past workforce. Responsibility may also rest with previous owners other than PetroChina and INEOS, currently in charge. Steps can and must be taken to address the current profitability and buy time so that a transition can take place both at the site and across our economy. Moreover, there are also actions that will increase capacity and thus profitability and productivity. That means linking Scotland’s oil refinery with Scotland’s oil production. Finally, there is the just transition and the need to prepare for the new world. That can and must be done at this site.
Let us examine those three aspects that must be done. First, there is the need to fix the hydrocracker at the refinery. Its current inoperability is impacting on profitability. Restarting it would increase profitability threefold. That is significant, and would allow an extension of life at the plant, even without any additional steps being taken. It is estimated that it would cost between £60 million to £80 million to do so, but it must be done. The money must be found, whether from Westminster, Holyrood or the existing business. Surely, from all three, finance can be found. It is a small cost for such a huge asset that is essential to not just our economy but our society. After all, there is a moral as well as a financial economy. The price must not be paid by the individuals and communities who would suffer from its loss.
As well as restarting the hydrocracker, there should be an increase in capacity and in what is refined. It will surprise many that North sea oil is not refined at the Grangemouth refinery, despite the pipeline for the Forties field coming ashore at Cruden bay and being pipelined on to Grangemouth. Almost all the product refined at the plant is brought in on tankers from elsewhere. It comes in on ships and goes away in trucks. Meanwhile, North sea oil is transported to other refineries, whether in the UK or abroad. That must end. It has always been absurd, but now it is criminal. Oil from the Forties field pipeline, which last year moved approximately 40% of the UK’s oil from the North sea, must be refined at Grangemouth. It requires technological and engineering changes, but they must be made. As Rosebank comes on stream, and as the Forties continues to flow, refining must be at Grangemouth. Scotland is entitled to expect no less from its resource.
The Prime Minister has trumpeted the necessity of continuing to exploit North sea oil, and while I can take issue with the extent and pace of it, I agree with the logic. It is absurd to import oil when we have our own resource. Not only is it economic self-harm, but it is environmentally daft to transport it across the seas when it is off our shores. Why spew out the significant fumes of a supertanker by the hundreds of thousands when we can pipe the oil ashore? To achieve that requires ensuring that the oil is refined here, which it currently is not.
The hypocrisy of the Prime Minister’s position has been exposed by those who oppose development. Their arguments have legitimacy unless steps are taken to ensure that the resource is refined here, rather than having the environmental double whammy of transporting our product far away for refining and then having those ships cross with others importing refined product from elsewhere. The Forties field oil supply must be refined at the site, and the technical and engineering work to achieve that must be done. It is bad enough that ownership   of the Rosebank field lies with the Norwegian state energy company, but to have that product refined abroad compounds the agony and the absurdity.
Finally, there needs to be preparation for the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Steps must be taken to prepare the site for biofuels, which will be required in the future. The sites to refine them need to be established. It makes sense to secure the short-term future of the site by restarting the hydrocracker. Similarly, extending the refinery’s capacity by ensuring that North sea oil is processed there is essential. Steps need to be taken towards that transition, which humanity is required to make for the sake of life itself, not just the planet. But it must be more than just warm words and empty rhetoric; it requires preparation and action. Making Grangemouth a future site for biofuels refining must be part of that.
In summary, securing the refinery is essential for Scotland, not just Grangemouth. The arguments for it are social, economic and environmental, and the case is overwhelming. It is simply perverse that an oil-producing nation should have no refinery capacity, or that an industrial desert be created where a natural bounty should see a country and its communities bloom. It is for those reasons that I ask the Minister to meet me and workers’ representatives from the site. Additionally, and most essentially, will he ensure that these three steps are taken? First, will he ensure that funds are found to restart the hydrocracker? Secondly, will he ensure that oil from the Forties field that is piped to Grangemouth is refined there, and that oil from new developments such as Rosebank will also be refined there, negating the environmental harm of the trans-shipment inward and outward of oil?

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. Does he agree that the East Lothian oil refinery at Grangemouth is a necessity not only for Scotland, but for all the United Kingdom? It must stay open not in opposition to renewable targets, but in partnership with them.

Kenny MacAskill: Yes, I agree with that.
My final point is that as we transition, we must ensure that actions are taken at the site for that new future by ensuring a biofuels capacity there. We simply cannot have the absurdity of an oil-producing nation lacking a refinery capacity, never mind the perversity of the oil it produces being shipped across the seas for refining.

Graham Stuart: May I begin by thanking the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) for securing this important debate and colleagues across the Chamber for joining it? I recognise that news of a plan to transition Grangemouth refinery into an import terminal is undoubtedly a matter of concern for many people. However, I make clear that the Government are committed to ensuring continued fuel supply, protecting jobs and creating opportunities in Scotland and across the UK. The primary responsibility of my Department is for the energy security of the whole of the UK, including Scotland. On 29 November, I met the Scottish Cabinet Secretary, Neil Gray, and we agreed that both our Governments would continue to work closely on this issue through forums such as the  Grangemouth future industries board. Scotland and the UK will continue to have reliable supplies of fuels after the transition, in line with the UK Government’s commitment to energy security and resilience.
Before I go into specifics, I want to recognise that Grangemouth refinery has been an important asset for the fuel supply of Scotland and the local economy since it opened in 1924. No final decision on the future of the refinery has been made, but the planning for the conversion of the refinery into an import terminal is a commercial decision by its owner, Petroineos. That reflects its view of the economic sustainability of the refinery in the context of expected refining margins, domestic demand projections and international competition. Even in this macroeconomic context, the UK and Scottish Governments are working together to understand all the options for the future of the refinery.

Christine Jardine: As the Minister just said, Grangemouth is a vital economic factor for the immediate vicinity, for my constituents in Edinburgh West and indeed for all of Scotland. Will the Government continue to support Grangemouth, given its importance to the future success of the green freeport, of which it is a vital component, not least because of its future capability to produce the sustainable aviation fuel on which so many developments are predisposed?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to champion such opportunities, of which there are so many going forward. That is why, if a decision is made on refining there, I believe that would be countermanded multiple times over by the opportunities in issues such as SAF, which she mentioned. Scotland and that area have such a role to play in delivering and continuing the UK’s global leadership in cutting emissions. We recently celebrated the fact that we have halved emissions—we are the first major economy on earth to have done so—and of course going forward we are ambitious than any other major economy on earth. Scotland has such a vital role to play in that.

David Duguid: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the importance of the jobs at Grangemouth and the skills that have been developed over the years—this year, it is 100 years since it first came on stream. Does he agree with me and most of the oil and gas industry, which is adamant that the skills, technologies and supply chains that supply not just the Grangemouth refinery but the whole North sea offshore industry are vital for managing not just the energy security of today but the energy transition of tomorrow?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is a great champion of those workers in the oil and gas industry. We now have an integrated energy industry. He may have seen the recent research suggesting that 90% of those currently employed in oil and gas have transferrable skills to the green transition, in which we can positively expect to see many more jobs in future if we maintain the strength of that industry today. That is why it is so disappointing that some Opposition parties oppose new licensing of oil and gas when that is vital to maintaining those jobs and that capability. In that respect, the Alba party is more constructive than others sitting on the Opposition Benches.
We are working closely with both the company and the Scottish Government to ensure a managed transition of the site, support its workers and ensure that Scotland’s fuel supply remains resilient. Petroineos’s plans will ensure that the Grangemouth site can maintain Scotland’s fuel supply through imports. Adapting the infrastructure to accommodate imports in larger tankers, particularly of diesel at Finnart on the west coast of Scotland, will ensure that the import terminal has greater flexibility and maintain robust fuel security.
I recognise that consumers may be worried that increasing the UK’s reliance on imported fuel products could increase the price they pay at the pump. I want to provide reassurance that this conversion is unlikely to drive up the price of petrol and diesel for the Scottish consumer. Fuel prices are mainly driven by international petroleum product markets and exchange rates, and imports into other sites such as Clydebank are already competitive in the Scottish market.
I also want to acknowledge that the announcement of the conversion will be concerning to the refinery’s employees and their families. We remain in close contact with the Scottish Government to mitigate impacts on jobs and the local economy. As part of our commitment to levelling up, the UK Government are already supporting the Falkirk Council area through the UK shared prosperity fund. Its allocation of more than £6.1 million will deliver a range of interventions that support local businesses, communities, people and skills. We are also supporting Falkirk Council with £40 million of UK Government investment through the Falkirk city and regional growth deal, which is supporting a range of locally driven projects that will create high-value jobs to help boost the local economy. We are working with the Scottish Government to deliver the Forth Green freeport, which covers the area. The freeport aims to drive a transition to net zero by 2045 by attracting up to £6 billion-worth of investment and creating approximately 50,000 jobs, generating an estimated £4.2 billion in gross value added in the first five years.

Douglas Chapman: The Minister is giving a comprehensive reply. The Forth Green freeport is really important. He mentions that he has been in discussion with the Scottish Government and others in the Grangemouth area. Will he also make a direct plea to the freeport to make sure it is fully involved in any potential reinvestment in the facility at Grangemouth, which has been part of the industrial heritage and the industrial scene in Scotland for a very long time? It would be a very valuable contribution if the Government could make such an intervention.

Graham Stuart: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, through contracts for difference and many other policy announcements from the UK Government, we are driving enormous growth in jobs in the green sectors. We expect them to grow to 480,000 jobs by the end of this decade. As I say, as a global leader in decarbonisation, Scotland, and that area in particular, has an enormous amount to offer and there are huge opportunities coming forward. We will publish next year a green jobs plan, working with industry to identify the pressure points and the opportunities going forward.
The Government remain absolutely committed to supporting the North sea oil and gas sector. The conversion of the refinery into an import terminal is not expected to impact significantly on North sea production. That is because only a very small amount of oil refined at Grangemouth currently comes from the North sea. Indeed, since the start of 2022, Grangemouth has received on average less than 10% of its supply from the North sea via the Forties pipeline, which the hon. Member for East Lothian referred to. This North sea crude would be made available to the open market via the terminal at Hound Point, alongside the rest of the Forties blend production. I can also confirm that there will be no impact on gas supplies.
I assure the House that the Government will continue to back North sea production by granting licences for new projects, such as the Rosebank field development. Developments such as Rosebank will continue to strengthen our energy security, support the transition to net zero, and create new jobs and opportunities. Rosebank, for example, is expected to be significantly less emissions-intensive than previous developments, which will help the UK to reach its ambitious targets for net zero. Its operator, Equinor, estimates that it will produce oil at around 12 kg of carbon dioxide per barrel, compared with an offshore production average of more than 20 kg of carbon dioxide per barrel. So it is already a much more efficient production. If electrification were to go ahead, it would be significantly lower again. In addition, the Rosebank project will provide investment of £6.3 billion in UK-based businesses, support around 400 UK-based jobs, and add around £24 billion to the UK economy across the project’s lifetime, according to its operator. Yet that licence finds itself opposed by the Labour party, even if it supports jobs and helps us to green the basin.
I want to finish by reiterating to the House the Government’s commitment to backing the North sea oil and gas sector to protect our energy security, attract investment, and create opportunities for communities in Scotland and across the UK. It is a declining basin. It is expected to fall, with new licences, at 7% a year. New licences are not part of increasing production, because we will not have increased production. It is about managing the decline and doing so in a way that brings forward developments such as Rosebank with lower emissions than the alternative. That is why it is the right thing to do for the environment, however counterintuitive that might seem. It is also the right thing to do for jobs and for the maintenance of the capability for the long term as we go through the transition and the green economy grows in the freeport as well as elsewhere.
The UK Government will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on this issue to ensure that when the time comes, there is a just transition of Grangemouth into an import terminal—if that is the decision made—and to ensure that fuel supplies for Scotland and the UK are maintained. The Government will also continue to support economic development in the local area to ensure that there is a just transition for the workforce.
I look forward to continuing to engage with Members, and with the hon. Member for East Lothian in particular, on this vitally important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.